Britain Adopts Shari’a
British papers are reporting that shari’a law has been officially adopted in Britain, with shari’a courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases, notably including wife beating. Gordon Brown’s Labour government “has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.” Particularly alarming is the fact that Islamic rulings are now enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court. Previously such rulings could not be enforced by the British state.
Shari’a courts with these powers have been set up in London, Birmingham, Bradford and Manchester with the network’s headquarters in Nuneaton, Warwickshire, with two more courts planned for Glasgow and Edinburgh. A visibly pleased Sheikh Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siddiqi, whose Muslim Arbitration Tribunal runs the courts, explains that he had taken advantage of a clause in the British Arbitration Act of 1996, which classifies sharia courts as “arbitration tribunals” whose rulings are binding in law once both parties in a dispute agree to accept its authority. It goes without saying that battered Muslim wives and disinherited Muslim daughters will “freely choose” the authority of shari’a courts rather than face various unpleasant and potentially fatal consequences of not conforming to the “community’s” rules and preferences.
What this means in practice was evident from a recent inheritance dispute in the Midlands, when the Nuneaton shari’a court divided the estate of a Muslim father between three daughters and two sons. The “judges” gave the sons twice as much as the daughters—perfectly in accordance with sharia, of course, but contrary to any regular British court, which would have given the daughters equal shares. In six cases of domestic violence quoted by Siddiqi, the “judges” ordered the husbands to take “anger management” classes and “mentoring from community elders” (such as imams and shari’a judges). In each case, the battered women subsequently withdrew the complaints and the police stopped their investigations. It should be noted that under normal British law those six cases could have been prosecuted as criminal, rather than “family” cases.
UNDERSTANDING SHARI’A—Muslim activists point out that allegedly simiral Jewish family courts (Bet Din) and Catholic marriage tribunals have existed in Britain for many years, but there is a major difference: such courts explicitly claim jurisdiction only over their believers, whereas according to orthodox Islamic teaching shari’a is the only legitimate law in the world, with universal jurisdiction over Muslims and non-Muslims alike. To a devout Muslim the incorporation of shari’a into British law is by no means the end of the affair. It is merely a major milestone on the road that cannot stop short of subjecting all Britons, regardless of faith, to the stricutres of Allah’s commandment and Muhammad’s example.
The Islamic law, the Shari’a, is not a supplement to the “secular” legal code, it is the only such code and the only basis of obligation (Kuran 4:8). No mere human entity has the authority to enact laws: shari’a judges cannot do or enact anything contrary to the Kuran or Sunnah. The definition of what is just depends solely on Allah’s will and Muhammad’s acts, to which none of the usual moral criteria found among non-Muslims is applicable. “Just” and “unjust” are not regarded in Islam as intrinsic characteristics of human actions to be legally judged. A shari’a judgment requires extensive knowledge of the Kuran and the Hadith, of course, as well as of Islamic legal precedents. Nevertheless, the body of sources of the law is finite and only qiya, or analogical reasoning, can be applied in the judgment.
Contrary to the Christian concept of governmental legitimacy (Romans 13:1), Islam condemns as rebellion against Allah’s supremacy the submission to any other form of law (Kuran, 5:50). Muslims believe that Shari’a should be used as a standard test of validity of all positive laws. Christ recognized the realm of human government as legitimate when he said, “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21). In Islam there is no such distinction between church and state.
Shari’a is not at all a “religious law” but a blend of political theory and penal law that relies for the punishment of violators on the sword of the state. To be legitimate, all political and legal power must rest with those who obey Allah’s authority and his revealed will sent down through his prophet (Kuran 5:59). Shari’a applies to all humankind just as Kuran applies to all creation. Any law that is inconsistent with it is null and void, not only to the Muslims, but to all humanity. Jews, Christians, and pagans are subject to Shari’a, too, and from Muhammad’s standpoint they cannot invoke the judgments and moral principles of prior revelations (4:60). Resort to any other source of authority is not only unjustified, it is satanic. The non-Muslims are to be judged by the laws of Islam in everything, “whether they like it or not, whether they come to us or not.”
Shari’a stands above reason, conscience, or nature. Its lack of any pretense to moral basis is explicit: there is no “spirit of the law” in Islam, no discernment of the consequences of deeds. The revelation and tradition must not be questioned or any other standard of judgment—least of all any notion of “natural” justice inherent to men as such—can be invoked, let alone applied (5:45). Muhammad has stifled in his followers the proclivity to natural law, “this high and often ultrahuman motive enhanced by education and refinement” (C.S. Lewis). A shari’a judge, like any other good Muslim, knows that thing is right simply because Allah says so, or because the prophet has thus said or done. No other standard of good and evil can ever be invoked.
BRITANNIA DELENDA—The ruling elite in Great Britain is either ignorant of, or more likely indifferent to, the implications of shari’a’s incorporation into the country’s legal system. The pace of Islamification of Britain is impressive. Earlier this year Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, declared on BBC Radio 4 that the establishment of sharia “seems unavoidable” in Britain. Two months ago Britain’s top judge (“the lord chief justice”), Lord Phillips, said that Muslims in Britain should be able to live under sharia. Theirs is the mature form of appeasement and surrender that has a long and inglorious history.
In the immediate aftermath of 9-11, then-Prime Minister “Tony” Blair said, “What happened in America was not the work of Islamic terrorists, it was not the work of Muslim terrorists.” Speaking to Muslim “community leaders” he added: “It was the work of terrorists, pure and simple,” who must not be honored “with any misguided religious justification,” because they “contravened all the tenets of Islam” which “is a peace-loving, tolerant religion.”
Echoing the Prime Minnister, two weeks after 9-11 former Home Office Minister John Denham made a pledge to cut out the “cancer of Islamophobia” allegedly infecting Britain, and declared that “the real Islam is a religion of peace, tolerance and understanding.” He called on the media to avoid promoting “a distorted or caricatured or prejudiced” view of Muslims or the Islamic faith. Yet Dr. Richard Stone, chairman of the Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia, responded by criticizing the government for not addressing “in a deep way” the anti-Muslim prejudice and for failing to address "institutional Islamophobia.”
Exactly six months later, on July 7, 2005, London’s turn came. The suicide bombers were four young British citizens, Muslim by religion, three of them Pakistani by parentage, born and bred in England and educated in state schools. Yet the deputy assistant commissioner of London’s Metropolitan Police, Brian Paddick, said that the culprits “certainly were not Islamic terrorists, because Islam and terrorism simply don’t go together.” He repeated, almost word for word, Tony Blair’s assurances given four years earlier. Blair himself declared it was hard to understand how those “born-and-bred Yorkshire lads” could turn on their fellow citizens. His reference to the morbid jihadist team as “lads”—an English term of endearment for the youthful male person, derived from Middle English ladde—was indicative of a seriously deranged mindset.
The adoption of shari’a is a logical outcome of the Blairite forma mentis, the size of Muslim immigration into Britain, and the dynamics of that growing community’s symbiotic interaction with the elite consensus. That consensus had started emerging even before the Rushdie affair (1988) allowed Muslims in Britain to flex their muscles in open opposition to the law of the land.
A generation later mosques and Islamic centers have multiplied all over Britain and provide the backbone to terrorist support network. The British security services have largely followed their political masters into a state of denial regarding the threat. The courts, for their part, routinely interpret the criminal, asylum, and terrorism laws in the manner damaging to the security of the Realm and favorable to the Jihadist underground. That underground thrives in mosques, state-supported Islamic educational institutions and community centers.
The new and supposedly improved Tory Party hardly offers an alternative. After a string of electoral defeats, under David Cameron it has joined the multiculturalist bandwagon. He now believes in racial, ethnic, and gender-based quotas. His colleague, the Conservative Party chairman Francis Maude, says immigration had been “fantastically good” for the United Kingdom.
Such inanities are light years away from another British Prime Minister and a far truer Tory, Winston Churchill, who warned over a century ago that “no stronger retrograde force exists in the world” than Islam: “Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science—the science against which it had vainly struggled—the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.”
The science is still there, but the shelter has been eroded, perhaps fatally, in the realm of the soul. T.S. Eliot may yet be proven right in his warning that the West would end, “not with a bang but a whimper."
79 Responses »
Trackbacks
- ADF Alliance Alert » UK: Voluntary Sharia courts re-classed as judicial tribunals under British law
- HERE’S THE ANSWER TO WHY BRITISH TROOPS ARE LEAVING IN DROVES-FREEDOM FOR AFGHANS ISLAM AND SHARIA FOR US HERE- « uk1884
- TROOPS RESIGN IN DROVES-GOOD! WE NEED THEM HERE TO STOP THIS SHARIA CRAP AT HOME! EURABIA MARXISM AND MOHAMMED JOIN FORCES!! « Centurean2’s Weblog
- Fjordman: on Euro acquiescence to Islam
- Britain Adopts Shari’a « Danmark
- Conservative Heritage Times » Wanted: More Muslim Babies for Conquest of Britain
- Cum multiculturalismul distruge Europa: adoptarea legii Sharia in Marea Britanie « Atitudini fara platitudini
Entries(RSS)
Great post! It's hard to believe that this has happened in England, but it's self-evidently clear that it has. All this tripe about Islam and peace! Let me know the next time any Islamic nation offers to mediate an international dispute or conflict because of their self-proclaimed abhorrence of violence and longing for peace...
Toynbee's challenge and response thesis also comes to mind (along with Eliot); we've finally met the challenge that we cannot successfully surmount - making an evidentiary-based judgment about whether a religion and its "law" square with our secular governmental rights and tradition at the price of being politically incorrect and therefore honest with ourselves.
I apologise on behalf of Britain for this, but nobody will do anything about Islam until it adversely affects their daily lives, something that is still at least a decade off.
Until then, we're all just a bunch of hysterical Islamophobes who have yet to learn that we cannot force our racist judgements on people.
I don't mean to derail this thread, but I can't let this statement by Churchill go with out comment:
"Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science—the science against which it had vainly struggled—the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.”
Maybe Churchill was right about Mohammedanism, but he knew nothing about the Church's relationship with science. Science owes its very existance to the fond embrace of the Church. And without the Church's insistance on the idea that the universe was created from nothing and that it is a once and for all creation, science would still be moribound by the pagan fantasy of an infinite and cyclical universe. All pre-christian science died in the demonic stanglehold of an infinite, cyclical reborn universe.
Not wanting to get far off topic, but the use of the word "all" in your post above, is pretty broad and perhaps too generalized.
To get back on topic, I think Churchill meant that Western Christendom is "sheltered" in a literal sense in the "strong arms" of science (and he might have added - technology), through which Western nations have created such military supremacy and prowess that the idea of an Islamic "conquest" of European civilization was laughable.
The distinction between the Bet Din courts and Sharia tribunals will be lost on the people. A modern society cannot allow one type of extra-constitutional precedent and forbid another based on the latter's scriptural claims to supersede the secular order. That argument, though valid, will be discarded as discrimination, for that is precisely what it is based on: an assessment of the relative merits of the two kinds of tribunals. This is no longer allowed. If Bet Din courts are allowed, so must Sharia - that is how the modern mind works. This is why the battle against "discrimination" is the foundation of all our evils, for it is a battle against our capacity to discern, judge, evaluate and reason.
Thus, it was a mistake to allow Jewish courts in the first place, and it was a mistake to pass draconian laws that imprison revisionist WWII historians, etc. All of these precedents will be used against us by Muslims to get their way - and no one will be able to articulate a counter-argument, for that would be "discrimination."
It will not be "discrimination" if and when Islam is reclassified as a cult-cum-political ideology, inherently seditious to all forms of human organization other than itself, and eminently deserving of the kind of treatment meted out in the U.S. to, say, Bolsheviks after 1917 and anarchists after 1901.
Homophobic Horse wrote: "I apologise on behalf of Britain for this, but nobody will do anything about Islam until it adversely affects their daily lives, something that is still at least a decade off. "
Britain's "best and brightest", "good and great" are pre-surrendering to save theirs and their own...at least until last.
Watch for America's "bien-pensants" to soon follow.
Thanks for this report! This movement, assuming it continues (and I see no reason presently why it would not continue), will lead to open war, I believe. Eventually the "man on the street" is going to gain awareness of Islamic law and dhimmitude and, while there are still enough non-Muslims and armaments to do something about it, there will be civil war in the UK and probably on the Continent.
I don't believe the so-called "man on the street" will simply stroll nonchalantly into dhimmitude. Violence will eventually erupt on a comprehensive scale.
"..with two more courts planned for Glasgow and Edinburgh."
Didn't realize they had started to take over Scotland as well.
I have always wondered, if I go visit the old country, will there still be a Scottish majority in these cities?
Thank you for drawing our attention to this, Dr. Trifkovic, and for your excellent commentary on this latest development in the UK's slide into dhimmitude.
A situation similar to this was a hot topic here in Canada a few years back as well. Ontario's 1991 Arbitration Act had allowed for faith groups to establish tribunals to decide family disputes in accordance with the principles of their religions. At the time this was mostly for Jews, Roman Catholics, and various "native spirituality" groups. When Islamic groups sought to establish similar courts in which decisions would be based on shari'a and their decisions officially recognized by Ontario law they met with opposition from protest groups. Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty took the opposite approach to the way the UK has decided this question. He decided to repeal the Arbitration Act, taking the force of law away from decisions made by all faith-based courts.
It would seem that both McGuinty and those who made the decision to incorporate shari'a courts into Britian's system of civil law are operating on the same principle of equality. If the Jews and Catholics can run such courts, the Muslims should be allowed to as well, the reasoning goes, and if the Muslims aren't allowed to neither should the Jews and Catholics. That reasoning is utter rot. Not only does it ignore the fundamental differences between Islam on the one hand and Christianity and Judiasm on the other it ignores the fact that Jewish and Roman Catholic faith groups have long been an established part of the cultural tradition of both the United Kingdom and Canada, and their local communities within those countries. In contrast, Islam is the religion of recent immigrants who have been brought into such communites by the acts of central governments indifferent to or even hostile to the wishes and best interests of those already there.
The reclassification of Islam that you suggest would be a major step towards escaping the "we have to treat everyone fairly" trap. My only concern is that governments that have been infused with liberal ideology might use such a reclassification as precedent for forcing Christians and Jews to conform to liberal ideals. For example, 3 years ago Paul Martin's Liberal government legalized so-called "same-sex marriages" in Canada. As of yet, churches and other religous groups have not been forced to conform to the government's new definition of marriages but have been allowed to operate on the basis of their beliefs. That situation will last until a homosexual couple that a church refuses to "marry" decides to sue that church on the basis that the law says same-sex marriages are okay, therefore for churches to refuse to marry is to commit that most mortal of all sins, discrimination. The courts, which are responsible to no-one but themselves, have a long record of siding against traditional Christians on these matters. Should the courts rule that churches must conform to the federal government's definiton of marriage or stop marrying people, and should there be enough Christians left in the country with enough backbone to keep a church or two from so conforming, a reclassification of Islam as a subversive ideology rather than a religion may very well be the precedent used by a democratically elected totalitarian government to crack down on all the Christians (and other traditionalists) who oppose them by similarly reclassifying all forms of religion that don't change to accomodate the spirit of "tolerance" in these times. The distinction between a religion refusing to alter its beliefs when told to by a government and a religion demanding that the government and everyone else submit to its laws will probably seem moot to a government that sees only that the volonté générale is being resisted. I seem to remember a column by the late Dr. Francis pertaining to the US PATRIOT Act in which he argued along the lines that one should not judge the wisdom of legislation by how one would use it oneself but by how one's opponents would use it.
Not just Churchill but so many of the Wests thinkers have warned of the existential danger that Islam poses.
John Wesley had this to say of Islam
Ever since the religion of Islam appeared in the world, the espousers of it...have been as wolves and tigers to all other nations, rending and tearing all that fell into their merciless paws, and grinding them with their iron teeth; that numberless cities are raised from the foundation, and only their name remaining; that many countries, which were once as the garden of God, are now a desolate wilderness; and that so many once numerous and powerful nations are vanished from the earth! Such was, and is at this day, the rage, the fury, the revenge, of these destroyers of human kind.
The Doctrine of Original Sin, Works (1841), ix. 205.
Alexis de Tocqueville
"I studied the Kuran a great deal ... I came away from that study with the conviction that by and large there have been few religions in the world as deadly to men as that of Muhammed.
Marco Polo's Diary (The Travels of Marco Polo, pp57-58 Peguin Books 1958):
"The Muslims in Persia are wicked and treacherous. The law which their propehet Mohamet[Muhammad] has given them lays down that any harm they may do to one who does not accept their law, and any appropriation of his goods, is no sin at all.
Finally John Quincy Adams- Sixth President of The United States of America
THE ESSENCE OF HIS (MOHAMMED) DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE
I think that your arguments suffer from a too rationalistic appraisal of the Christian doctrine of law and government. Yes, secular power is recognized as legitimate in its own right, but only insofar as it derives from God and is based on God's law. So our current 'Christian' governments that allow abortion, homosexuality and other immoralities have clearly forfeited their legitimacy. It's fairly clear to me, at any rate, that the encroachment of Islamic law in supposedly Christian lands is a warning not to suppress Islam just so we can get back to our pagan lifestyles unhindered, but to awaken to repentance. When we become true Christians again, then the Islamic threat, while not going away entirely, will be much easier to face.
Jonathan: A wise and timely comment. There can be and, God willing, there WILL be no business as usual after this existential struggle is over.
The elite clique, the ruling pseudo liberal Gnostics (Anglophile Masons and Zionist Kabbalists) enjoy sewing discord amongst the masses. Nothing is more abhorrent to these economic succubi than a justice and freedom loving independent nation state.
The Moslem is their Trojan Horse as he can be sanctified, bought and demonized in an instant for their purposes.
It is only through discord (multiculturalism), disharmony (socialism), nihilism (atheism), smashing fraternity (globalization), silencing the pulpit (new age occultism) and destroying the family and patriarchy (feminism) that these villains can come to power.
I can here the seals being unraveled......
I liked Jonathan's comments as well.
I believe that you'll see a backlash from BNP types to this sort of thing as it continues, but I also think you'll see more and more Anglo converts to Islam.
It offers something our society doesn't anymore and that is a fundamental belief in family values, codified in an ancient scripture and expressed through ancient ritual. I think lonley and disillusioned Westerners will be attracted to it, because they're tired of being told they're nothing but the products of orgasms who's only purpose in life is to seek out orgasms, they're tired of being told their feelings and emotions are meaningless and absurd and they're tired of waiting to die alone.
So like Jonathan says, I'm not so sure that these changes arent part of a bigger picture that will eventually reunite Europe with its soul after a long existential struggle with the heirs of the Beduin
Re: # 9 Andy: "...I don’t believe the so-called “man on the street” will simply stroll nonchalantly into dhimmitude. Violence will eventually erupt on a comprehensive scale."
Andy, you speak as some of my Canadian friends who believe that Islamists will never dominate Canada in any form or shape and that people will rather fight than submit to Shari'a law or to Islamists' demands. That is, that Muslims will never try to change our way of life in Canada (for it offers prosperity, high standard of living etc.) They are naively wrong. As in the UK, they will achieve their goals by means offered by the existing positive law of the country they immigrated to (Canada, the USA, and Serbia etc.). Before long, we wouldn't know what hit us, they'll have they way and their Shari'a law imposed on us.
This is very serious and I suppose we are lucky to be able to glimpse what is happening, through the mist. I'm a recent conservative Catholic convert to Islam (due to marriage); I'm a non-practising Muslim and a Chronicles reader. I guess I should also mention that I'm a White Nationalist and I support the BNP, NDP, VB, and FN.
Although educated at Jesuit prep school and Jesuit university, I stopped going to Mass several years ago. Why? I became frustrated with the Church's position on immigration, race, and nationalism. I opposed the constant apologising to others, the failure to deal adequately with sodomite priests, and the materialistic focus on helping poor coloured people in the third world instead of reaching out to the souls of white folks in the West. There is something seriously wrong with the Church, or at least with the so-called Christians who are Her stewards in the West.
Today, as I mentioned, I'm a non-practising Muslim. I don't believe or observe even 10% of what Islam teaches. Neither does my wife, who is Sunni, observe the tenets of the faith aside from fasting during Ramadan (which is occuring now). From socializing with my in-laws and our Muslim friends, almost all of whom are European-looking, I have learned that they abhor Sharia law and look down on the more primitive Muslims from Pakistan, India, and Africa. I even get the impression that they are open to conversion to Christianity--that is, if modern Christianity offered something more than folk masses, televangelists, and emotionalism.
My impression is that in Islam there is more of a focus on family, obedience (to God), and community. It's almost like a cult, but unlike modern cults it offers a legitimate history and established customs. (Islam at its heart is a form of Christian heresy, mixed with pagan and lunar beliefs, hence the crescent). As society in the West falls apart, I think cults or religions that offer these things increasingly will attract people. Interestingly enough, in my area I know at least four (4) other blond, blue-eyed educated white men who have converted to Islam, for the same reasons.
Sooner or later, Western patriots concerned about the rise of Islam are going to have to stop complaining and do something about it, which will probably result in civil conflict and serious bloodshed. In other words, put up--or shut up.
"It offers something our society doesn’t anymore and that is a fundamental belief in family values, codified in an ancient scripture and expressed through ancient ritual."
Family values?? Sorry Cato but this "Roman" gal disagrees. I don't know what kind of family you were raised in, but I don't care to see girls raised in a family where they can be beaten or killed with near impunity because bringing "shame" real or imagined upon the family. I don't care to see women imprisoned because they report a rape but cannot come up with 4 male Muslim witnesses. I don't want to see school girls forced back in their burning school because they tried to flee without going back for the draperies they are forced to wear.
The ItaloAmerican R.C. family I was raised in fostered the proper values and virtues in their daughters because we were recognized as full human beings deserving of full human rights. To cement such rights, one must be vigilant about which "ancient rituals" and "ancient scriptures" one is touting.
re: Johnathan #13
Very well said. It is obvious that our courts have gone astray. Anyone with any bit religious affiliation with any of the traditional major faith groups is going to take western law as a joke. Great article Dr. Trifkovic
What Churchill didn't know and would not have believed is how easily the Muslims have been able to infiltrate the west and begin to undermine it.
When the general population becomes wise to the way political correctness and multicultural have paved the way for this infiltration, it will be too late to do anything about it.
Readers here should read Trifkovic's "The Sword of the Prophet" and "Defeating Jihad" and Mark Steyn's "America Alone" if they care about what is happening to the West.
First, let's scotch the notion of the Islamification of Britain. There are no more than 3 million Muslims in my homeland out of an inevitably "diverse" population of over 60 million. Britain isn't France or Holland. Native Britons will not be delivered to their fate through the process of social Islamification, or through a specifically Moslem demographic explosion.
Rather, native Britons, and most especially my own English people, are drifting towards near extinction through what I have termed the Four Horsemen of the European Apocalypse: political marginalisation, local displacement, national dispossession and deracination.
Second, the causes of this genocide (and, yes, it meets the terms for genocide as set out under Article 2 of the Geneva Convention of 1948) are the same in Britain as everywhere else, principally the nature of hyper-individualism, the interests of the power elites and Jewish ethno-aggression - probably in that order. Moslems are passive beneficiaries. They are not politically or metapolitically significant, and if a nationalist mindset existed they could be easily dispensed with.
Third, although I have been a life-long conservative I no longer hold that it has the transformative potential to deliver an ethnic English Restoration. For one thing, we do not have the time to drift sweetly along on the gentle currents of conservative thought. We need crisis. We need vigour. We need to end our racial self-estrangement. We need a rhetoric of collective rights and interests, and collective rebirth.
These things will never be conservatism's gift. Nationalism - not exclusively palingenic - holds out the only prospect of ethnic survival. It is too late to anything else.
So let the Moslems have their law. Let us recognise their profound incapacity to join with us. Balkanise, balkanise, balkanise. It is all grist to the nationalist mill, and we need it.
re: Giles #20. I don't know exactly what you mean by the term "White Nationalist" and the several initials after that term, but as a fellow Catholic, let me be the first to urge you to reconsider your decision to leave the Church.
Perhaps this is a case of chickens coming home to roust
Britian and it's intelligence agencies have been supporting radical muslim groups in Bosnia and Kosovo in the Balkans, Pakistan and Afghanistan and Kashmir (with ISI help) Muslim provinces of Russias south Chechnya, Dagestan, Ingushetia, Central Asia and Xinjing in China.
Even has links to 9/11 with Abu Qatada spiritual videos being found in the 9/11 Hamburg cells apartment who was on the payroll of MI6.
Abu Hamza and Finsbury Park Mosque it was revealed after his trail was confronted by MI5 during the 90's and sanctioned to recruit Muslims to fight foreign jihad in Bosnia and Chechnya.
All other religions and cultures have assimilated nicely into the West and have accepted their host´s culture and respected its traditions. All but Islam, that is. Islam is a problem to all people and cultures outside of its own. Let´s be frank: None of us who are nonMuslim want Islam anywhere near us. If you have the choice, you will say no to the mosque down the street, the Muslims moving in, Sharia law in your country, etc. I gladly accept the Buddhists and Seikhs and Jews and anyone else. Muslims? Prooblems. It´s inevitable, and has been throughout history. "Islamophobia" is supposed to make us cringe, like the word racsist or bigot. But I am an Islamophobe because I know Islam´s history and I care for my country and its culture and its people. I am an Islamophobe because I have studied Islam, its culture, and know it well enough to be a committed Islamophobe.
@ Livy ~ Please be clear, I did not leave the Church; the Church left me. I have not changed my positions on God, obedience, family, sex roles, race, immigration, virtue, etc. By White Nationalist I simply mean I am working with others to ensure the survival and supremacy of white people, or European or European-derived people, in our own lands in Europe, Russia, and North America. It doesn't mean culture does not exist. I read Chesterton, Belloc, and Tolkien like the rest of you. But Western culture today (or what passes for it) is a rotten, hollowed-out shell. Its continuation is secondary to the continuation of white populations. The survival of Western people is what is threatened today, at this very moment. Without white people, Western culture will disappear.
Geoff, you said it so well there is little I can add, except this: In this 21st century with nuclear, biological, chemical, and nano technology weapons there is no place on earth for the religion of the pedophile prophet of mass murder. Civilized humanity must force the reformation of Islam or completely disinfect it if it will not reform.
I’m more concerned about Muslim high birth rate than actual terror threat. A worsening economy combined with an increased birth rate equals disaster.
Maybe western countries shouldn't constantly favour islamic countries or regions over christian ones.
Even Saddam was the most secular Arab country in the Mid East even going to war against Iran in the 80's to stop islamic influence in Iraq and one of the few Arab countries not support the jihadists in Afghanistan in the 80's.
Christian community was much better of in Saddams Iraq than it is now.
Excellent documentary ZERO on 9/11.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3kBn1usddI
Especially good part on what is Al Queda.
First of all, as a Hindu I thought that Islam would be more understandable to you guys than to us, the Buddhists, Sikhs, Jains and the Zoorastrians. Is it not after all mostly a copy of Christianity and Judiasm?
Hindus and Buddhists suffered the most from Muslim invasions--India before the coming of Islam was one of the world's richest civilizations. It was still rich until the Brisish raped it more, to the extent that when Britain left Britain originated 20% of the world's trade and India 1%. The numbers were in the reverse when they first came to India, and Britian at that time just generated 1% of the world's trade. When they came to India they were just humble traders, nothing more. They loved the sniff of money, and exploited in the name of civilizing the "Heathens". You can read of their civilizing mission in Will Durant's "A Case for India" which was banned by Britain in the 30's and god knows why. Under the Muslims, art, philosophy, literature, mathematics had declined in India. The Muslims just built slave structures like the Taj Mahal for their enjoyment and things such as Mughal gardens. They did not build a single university or school. After the coming of Islam, Indian culture became rigid because everyone suffered under the Muslims having to pay very high taxes if they did not convert to Islam. The goal was survival. Buddshim which had been the solution to the problem of caste--offering a voice for everyone ---vanished from its home and took its great world view to China, Tibet and Japan. In Japan you can see the flowering of Buddhist ideals, something that unfortunately that did not happen in India because of the coming of Islam. The dominant religion in India at the coming of the Muslims was Buddhism, in fact, not Hindusim. The Buddhist canon, written by upper caste Hindu converts to Buddhism has never really been improved upon. Today, the best known spokesman for Buddhism is the Dalai Lama--what a far cry from the original Buddhists who were the most educated folk of thier day. The Nalanda Buddhist University was established so that the monks could teach lay people not religion-but all the subjects--from mathematics, art, philosophy and the crafts--whatever constituted knowledge of the day. This University was operating long before the Universities were established in Bologne and long before Oxford. Buddhism allwoed for debate about itself and was open to differing points of view regarding religious matters. It follwed simple principles and was suitable for a nation-- for both educated and non-educated alike. All the Christian ideas are already contained in one sect or another among the Hindus and Buddhists so it is hard for us to be impressed with Christianity. And even Buddhism predates Christianity by 500 years. But Buddhism also declined after it fled from its true home--I mean you have monks now interested in just transcendental meditation and not the affairs of the world. You have Zen in which you are to gain sudden "enlightenment". This is a far cry from the original religion founded as an antidote to the caste system of the HIndus, whose founding members who wrote the Buddhist canon were the most educated people of their time in terms of culture and were interested in keeping up with with the world around them in terms of learning all that constituted learning.
However, there is one thing to be thankful for the British-- they reopened the contact India had with the West. They built Universities and other institutions, even if it was only to facilitate their own rule. Had it not been for them, the whole area would have been Mohammedian. After Islam contact between India and the West ceased except through the Arabs who were traders. This is why Europe had to rediscover India becasue after Islam India had no more contact with the West--the Greeks, on the other hand, had been frequent visitors there as can be evidenced from ancient texts. Anyway, the Brisith for all their exploitation--they were out to teach the INdians just as before the Romans had been out to teach and civilize the Anglo-Saxons who must have appeared very barbaric to their eyes--renewed contact with the West and India profited immensely from this contact. Hindu culture had retrogressed and was no longer creative after constant Muslim attacks. Caste became more entrenched for people to survive the Muslims. However, despite the Muslims and the lootings of the British, civilization in India was not destroyed. The blood of the original people who created culture was still left--although at 20% of the total population as of now. Also, there were a lot of tribal aborigianl people in India. The Hindus did not kill them like the Europeans did everywehre but lived with them side by side and let them be. These people would have been integrated through Buddhism, which was a native solution to a native problem, but thanks to Islam, Buddhism had to flee its motherland. But soon the law of the survival of the fittest took over and the aboriginal people found themselves a permanent underclass though a rigid caste system which became ever more rigid for the Hindus to be able to survive the Muslims. So people who think caste is the only problem in India have a very narrow view of INdian history and demographics. The Eastern religions do not proselytize like the Abrahamic religions. For Hindus, you are born a Hindu. Hinduism recognizes that there are many paths to God--Hindusim in fact has the largest body of atheistic literature of any religion. For us, Christianity is but a facet of HIndusm --akin to the Bhakti or cult of devotion, among various sects. Hinduism recognizes various levels of religious unerstanding--from that of the lofty philosopher to that of the undeducated peasant. There is no one "book" like that of the Christians to simplify everything for the masses. They do not believe they have a monoploy on the truth unlike the Christians. I have seen very agressive Christian missionaries who prey on the poor and make them believe that their souls are saved if they convert. However, in regions like Himanchal comprising of upper caste populations they have barely won any converts--and why should they? HIndus have thier own religion, do not impose it on others and do not believe in conversions. You are born into a religion and culture. Cults like the Hare Krishna are but a recent phenomenon. If as in cases others want to become Hindus, the Hindus do not object. If I attend Chruch I am still a Hindu. But when Hindus get angry when poor people are converted by force by Christians I tell them why do you not help them? Can you blame poor people from converting because they get some money from the Chruch and are told they will go to heaven and their souls will be saved? Why don't you challenge missionaries by helping people regardless of religion and show a better example? Look at Mother Teresa. Where did the millions go that she received? To opening convents! Arpart from some charitable works like some clinics and orphanages, she did not build a single university or hospital from the money, which was largely used to build convents for potential converts. However, she did draw attention to the poor of India who are largely ignored. I myself have seen that her charities refuse to help treat you if you are not Christian--so one can see the agenda there. This is described by Chris Hitchens in an interesting article "The Ghoul of Calcutta". Who was a true Christian? Ablert Schweitzer is far a greater man in my eyes than Mother Teresa whose primary aim was to expand the Vatican agenda. She did what she believed in and I think she was rather naive to see herself as expanding the Chruch. But those were her beliefs and she is to be respected for that. Reliion preys on the poor and offers hope for them: it offers hope to the shipwrecked in life, those those who are beaten, to those who are victims. You just have to go to a black church in Harlem and attend the mass to see how much passion there is there. Why the passion? Becasue people are suffering, and religion gives them some ray of hope.
Freud in "Moses and Monotheism" has a good critique of the Western monotheistic religions. He claims that Moses was an Egyptian who destroyed the peace and continues to do so-meaning that Abrahamic realigions by tying religion to conquest and empire did a lot of damage. Before the Abrahamic religions, the religions were of a syncretic nature. There was no one book, not a single truth. The religions influenced each others as can be seen the mystery cults coming from the East such as that of Mithra. Smart Greeks read philosophy and the lay people worshipped thier Gods. This is why Julius Caesar could claim to be a priest of Jupiter and an atheist at the same time. For highly educated tiny Greek minority, religion was more of a social thing where you attened various celebrations and festivals with your community. But the smarts read Stoicism, Epicureanism and philosophy which tried to give reasoned explanations in favor of ecourgaring people to work for justice and the good--not miracles. When I read Plato and Aristotle, thier arguments for the "good" is far superior to that of the Bible becasue it is the result of moral and spiritual development, not that of commandments by God to a man on a mountain. But not everyone can understand Plato and Aristotle. And so it was in ancient times. The Greeks for their lofty pholosophy did not think all men were created equal. And thier lofty philosophy was limited to a select few. The slave did not count. What changed this was the advent of Christianity. And you can see it lead to something that the Greeks never accepted: all men are created equal in front of God. So it was a moral revolution in the West. This had occurred with Buddhism in the East. The Hindus had these ideas too but thier society had too much caste heirarchy which eventually became corrupted and did not allow for social mobility. So Christianity was a movement started by the poor masses--you look at the early famous Christians and they were widows, poor and oppressed and such. It carried out a lot of social works and won the hearts of the poor thereby. And plus the Bible was so simple that everyone coud understand it: it was designed for the masses. Moreover, a study of history shows how Christianity developed from the mystery cults. The Greeks become tired of sending everyone to Hades and become interested in ideas of rebirth and aoptheosis as evidenced in pre-Christian mystery cults such as that of the Diana of Ephesus. Christianity fulfilled a need that started to grow with the mystery cults.
After Christianity, dark ages descended in Europe becasue the Christians were against the "rationalism" of the Greeks. They destroyed pagan art, not understandig it, just as the Muslims thought the Hindus were idolators becasue they had art. Muslim invaders even considered the Buddhists as idol worshippers when Buddhists do not even worshop a personal God in the sense of Christians. I guess coming from the desert where they had nothing but had to fight even over water, how could you expect them to understand Hindu and Buddhist art? However, the Europeans rediscovered luckily Greek thought in the Renaissance and there was a flowering of science and culture in Europe while India languished under Muslim rulers. People sought to reconcile religion with science after that and reformed Christianity to fit the needs of science and philosophy. The West has progressed ever since. And so religion must be growing, it is not a static thing, it has to respond to changes in society. Hinduism is such a religion--it has a continuous development--it is not a static religion although many HIndus think it is. One can see evolution from polytheism, to henotheism, to monotheism, to the abstract spiritual ieals of the Upanishads. The Buddha merely made popular doctrines that are floating among the HIndus. I wonder if Greek though would have had a similar development without Christianity? After all Christianity was a foreign graft coming from the Mid-East and has always seemd to me to be a graft on the Europeans, which is why few are so passionate about it. It is different for the HIndus- there religion is a native development, not a graft.
Islam seems to have become static unlike Christianity. One has to read about the cannibalism during the Crusades by the Christians to see what Christians were like once upon a time too. But they have adopted their religion to science and discarded the irrelevant aspects. However, I have come across some very crazy Christians who try to convert me. I have read thier Bible and like some things aoubt it, but I have a religion, I do not need to be a Christian, nor do I need to impose my beliefs on others. My acestors have all been Hindus for 3000 years. Islam has not had its Luther unfortunately. This is why there is such a mess, it has not been able to respond to a changing society.
And to a man called GILES who consders the Muslims of India to be backward, I find the Persian brand of racism rather curious. They say they are a pure peoples when they have been mixed with Turks and Arabs--even their Shah was a Turk, as were most of their Gujar kings and other dynasties--but why this dislike of Turks when you are mixed with them? So it does not suit them to be racist. The real pure ones are the Zoorastrians who are a few now in Iran but who fled to India after Iran became Muslim. This community shows how accepting Hindus are to religions that let others be. Zoorastrians are an educated community, and marry within thier own and do not try to convert anyone. Under the British, their fortunes changed and they became entrepreneurs from poor farmers becasue upper caste Hindus had odd beliefs and considered Bristish unclean, so the British preferred to deal with Parsis who ate beef. Hence, their transformation from a society of peasants to entrepreneurs and Persians are generally good in business just like the Jews and the Baniya caste of HIndus(which curiously is a low caste in Hinduism). The Iranians developed a strange brand of Islam after being conquered by the Arabs--the Shiite version which is very anti-Arab. But Islam is a very big part of their culture. But Iranians are a mixed people although they do not like to admit it. And it is true that the Persians have given Islam a culture, just as former Greek colonies and Hindu India also gave to Islam. It is not surprising that the people who translated the Greek texts to Arabic were first generation Zoroastrian converts to Islam--they still retained the broad outlook to appreciate other people's culture, in this case Greco- Roman culture. Even Rumi was from Balkh--a former Buddhist and Zoroastrian enclave and hence the "mysticism" in a matter of fact religion like Islam. And the guy who wrote the aljebra book influenced from the Greek Dophantus and Hindu Brahmagupta Al-Knowrizimi was also a first generation Zoorastrian convert--that should tell one something. But as to your Iranian racism do not look down on Muslims in India--Iran is not really doing all that great either despite their oil wealth.
I have hopes for India. The native culture is crative and relilient. I hope that HIndu and Buddhist ideals flower there in peace and are not destroyed. Indians have been messed up historically from foreign invsions but despite the fact that the naive culture was ruined, not all is lost. It is clear the area is progressing becasue of Hindus and becasue it is not a Pakistan or a Bangladesh.
Oh, for Christsakes James1, enough already with the 9/11 conspiracy stuff. Accusing the Bush Administration of being behind the 9/11 attacks is giving them way too much credit. I wish the Bush Administration HAD planned the 9/11 attacks. Because then it would never have happened. With those boobs calling the shots, the terrorists would have boarded the wrong flights, and their duffel bags full of box cutters would have been loaded on different planes.
Bev C Im a Roman Catholic also, but the fact is that family relations amongst Muslims are generally much tighter than they are amongst Westerners
My mother's family is Cuban American and her generation had tremendous family values and family relations and as theyve become more "Americanized" and more seperated from their Catholicism theyve lost a lot of those values and it's apparent
Andy wrote: "This movement, assuming it continues (and I see no reason presently why it would not continue), will lead to open war, I believe. Eventually the “man on the street” is going to gain awareness of Islamic law and dhimmitude and, while there are still enough non-Muslims and armaments to do something about it, there will be civil war in the UK and probably on the Continent."
You failed to mention that more Muslims died in the war against terror than Americans or British and that while this war is new to you, it certainly is not to the Muslim world.
Those radicals that everyone hate didn't end up in the west by accident, they are mostly asylum refugees running from the Muslims that know them for who they are.
Taring all Muslims with the same brush achieves only two things:
1 . Arm the radicals against the moderates
2 . make the moderates see you as no different than the radicals
What needs to happen, given the political nature of Sharia courts as opposed to Ecclesiastical and Hebraic tribunals, is a clear and official recognition of this Imperium in Imperio. There is precedent for allowing Islamic law for Muslims within a Christian state: it was part and parcel of the colonial world, notably, in Algeria. Muslims who wish to be so privileged, however, must be required to renounce their U.K. nationality: this was the situation in French Algeria, where no one could become a French citizen without first relinquishing his right to be tried in a Sharia court. Very few Algerians took them up on this, as it was tantamount to renouncing their faith.
If only the Labour government had such spine. This would be an excellent way of seeing once and for all just how compatible this religion is with the Occident.
@Giles: You are wayward in more than a few ways, but let me start by saying that the American bishopric has a long history of quasi-abberational thinking regarding a number of issues, and in a slightly different way, so has the French bishopric. This is why slightly rogue bands of Catholics tend to do so well in both countries. Look up "FSSPX," "Ultramontanism," "Gallicanism" and "Americanism."
As for your White Nationalism, we can quibble about terminology, but I would be careful whom I associated with.
I tried to be open minded and accepting. Then I realized that acceptance of people who want to kill me is another form of suicide.
I find it funny that the white nationalists like Giles can marry descendants of Turks and Arabs(his sunni wife who has turk and arab blood) but claim that other Muslims are inferior--I am not muslim but this is twisted logic to me. They erased my comments about Christians--this seems to be the backward Christain counterpart of the Muslims point of view--lots of crazy Christian too out there who want to convert us who have been around with our religion way before all these Abrahamic religions came into being. When people delete your fair comments then this site is no better than the sharia of which they complain and their methods are no better than that of those who delete arguments because they have no answer for them. As for Pakistanis in Britain, as much as I fear the growth of fundamentalist Islam which is a danger to world civilization--too bad Brists--did not not go once to other people's countries and make a mess? Now they are in your backyard and you say are causing trouble. Live with the fact that you have no more colonies to steal from and you are headed to becoming an insignificant little island in the future.
Ciao
Oh I see my long comment was not deleted...anyway one should not judge someone because they are Muslim. Adbul Kalam, the President of India is a muslim- a rocket scientist and a role model for all. However, I do believe that it is unfortunate that Islam is so static and does not adapt to the changing world. In terms of the civilizational battle, it is clear that Islam has already lost. I would give those mid-East countries about ten more years to be rich--smart people around the world will discover alternative sources of energy hopefully--hope the Americans adopt seriously something like the Manhattan project for alternative engrgy soon. The the oil dictatorships will have no more money, and probably in about ten years or so will fritter away the money they will have. So I give it twenty years--ten for alternative sources of engergy to be implemented and ten for them to waste their money. And then no one will be complaining about militant Islam becasue there will be no more money to fund it. Perhaps then those countries will be able to examine themselves--after all when were the Saudis examining their society? When they were poor and had no oil.
Thank God the day has finally dawned that Dr. Trifkovic has used (what I took to be my own contention "Islam is nothing more than a cult" - and does not conform to ethical standards of any religion, faith, God - even the Pagans (with multitheism) had more respect for human life than present day Islam.
Within this same section (about a year ago) somebody found himself called upon to educate me on the differences between the Tamil Tigers and their opponents in today's Sri Lanka (prior Ceylon). Only one week had gone by to the day when Sri Lanka adopted Shari'a to be the only law applied to their banking industry while their "modest" Muslim population is on the rise (constant rise). Some 6 months ago, Dr. Trifkovic gave us a rulling handed down by a German family court (custody battle and divorce proceedings) where a Muslim husband was acquitted of wife beatings and allowed custody of children....
I am one of those "pain in the neck guys" who like to say - "I told you so, years ago". Now this same common cold is reaching the proportions of a major epidemic and bubonic plague might have to be revised in future history books as a passing itch. It seems like an incredible weakness of Christianity (let alone that most of GB is Anglican) to allow for this tragedy to transpire. There was a time in the early 1970s when I witnessed a great deal of Arabic clothing all over Londinium and thought of it "fait accompli" - but I didn't have the guts for such colorful ideas (loudly). Now I do.
Thank you, Dr. Trifkovic
I, actually enjoy this.........
Way to go, Brave New World
Ghanu saras Gargi ,
Well read you are , Hindu leadeship has failed Hindus (I.E. not informing them) but few Hindus haven't failed themselves,
@Gargi: If you wish to accuse us colonists of moralising and ruining your country, then may I, as their descendant, kindly ask that you refrain from making totally inaccurate statements about our own mother continent's history, such as: "After Christianity, dark ages descended in Europe becasue the Christians were against the “rationalism” of the Greeks" etc.
If you want to talk retribution, though, I could point out several things, not the least of which being that most of us were farmers and working-class, hardly robbers and rapists. And yes, native Indian culture is resiliant and in many ways admirable--but I am curious, does this include Sati (ritual widow burning, for those not in the know)?
As for economics, it is hard to compare pre-industrial with industrial figures... of COURSE India, having not industrialised as fast as Britain, would have seen its share of global trade diminished, although I seriously doubt its present industrial-tech boom would have been thinkable without the legacy of English colonialism.
And yes, we--myself, most other Chronicles folk, and the Pope whose "agenda" you so deplore has never been a secret--believe Christianity is THE religion. No true Christian does not believe this. You are perfectly free to beg to differ, but you do seem inclined to wish that people could be accepted for who they are. I wish people who opposed Christianity would just say so.
I do share your amusement at the irony of Giles's White Nationalism. Of course the Arabs and Turks would consider themselves superior to other Muslims that they conquered and bribed to convert--in fact, if I understand correctly, conversion was at first prohibited in the Islamic Empire and the rulers were furious when it became religious policy to convert the dhimmi, as this meant a serious loss of tax revenue.
But if anyone thinks that he, as a European, is some sort of higher being in their eyes, he clearly has not seen some of the racist jabs pre-modern Arab Muslims have made about white Europeans.
One more point about Christianity being a "graft": Europeans are less than enthusiastic about Christianity because they have been brainwashed by liberalism: the "reform" and "enlightenment" so touted was in actuality a death sentence for the Christian faith. The Peasants' Crusade ought to dispel the idea that Europeans have never been passionate about their religion.
And Islam was a "graft" onto most Turkish tribes, as well, yet they have become enthusiastic and at times fanatical Muslims.
Thank you for this article. Churchill would be proud of you and ashamed of our beloved England. I disagree the with the post suggesting we have 10 years. I think it is more like three or four (compare to 1936).
Gargi,
You allege The Sisters of Charity, Blessed Thresa of Calcutta's order, denied care to those needy not Christian. I personally know better: the Sisters have always served those treated like discared trash by their Hindu brothren regardless of religous affiliation or caste. As for establishing new "nuneries", these are clinics to serve any in need. Unlike your beloved Hinduism, the Sisters, Christians all, don't differentiate between castes and abandon the needy. Where are the Hindu equivalent of the Sisters of Charity?
Gargi, that's the essence of why Christianty, Hinduism, Buddhism and Muhammadism differ. Christianity is driven by love of neigbor( action, not lip service like Muhammadens). How may Buddhist clinics ae serving the needy in The Congo? Calcutta?
As for your Hindu friends in my corner of the U.S., they contribute nothing to the local community despite being second or third generation. I'd rather have Sister Thersa and her ilk any day.
I'm surprised that so many commentators seem to miss the point.
Christian, Jew, or atheist, you have reason to be REALLY concerned when Jihad overcomes the infidels.
What is at stake is the freedom to believe whatever you like.
That's what makes the T. S. Eliot quote so accurate. Jihad is winning without a military victory. Jihad is winning with the tools that the West is providing.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...
The problem with Britain is the lack of a written constitution. But even were it to remedy that deficiency, it would likely have no First Amendment without first depriving Mrs. Windsor of her ironic rôle as "Defender of the Faith." By the time Britain evolves politically to that point, "the Faith" may no longer be the one Henry and Cranmer concocted.
Sharia has a proper rôle in Britain. Why should a civil court deign to judge whether some imam contests the alleged non-halal slaughter of a feast-day goat?
Or should two British Mohammedans dispute the fulfillment of the terms of a contract, say, by which one was to repair the leaking roof of the other, such a tort might without objection from the civil authorities be handled by a Mohammedan arbitration board. Indeed, it would be unlikely the civil courts would even know of the case and the public treasury would be spared the expense. But if the roofer is a Mohammedan and the roofee is Christian, or vice versa, what then will be the jurisdiction? If one party were Jewish and the other non-Jewish, the Bet Din would laugh it out of court. You can get a get but not a roof in the Bet Din. The universal jurisdiction of sharia does not laugh.
Or if the litigants are parents attempting to relieve a daughter of the burden of clitoris and labia, what is her recourse? Or if they seek to murder her to save their "honour"? These are not torts but felonies and the proper jurisdiction is criminal court. Yet sharia must trump secular law according to the qadis.
British common law has evolved for a thousand years and has created some very bad precedents indeed. This is without reasonable doubt the worst of all.
But all is not lost. The Mohammedan predilection for public chastisements means that the amputations, stonings and beheadings will be carried out in open air on the town commons. And for those without the BBC, there is always Youtube.
Affranchir le musulman de sa religion est le plus grand service qu’on puisse lui rendre. (Renan)
"By the time Britain evolves politically to that point, “the Faith” may no longer be the one Henry and Cranmer concocted."
It has not been so for a number of decades, actually, which depending on your perspective may be seen as a blessing or a curse. I would celebrate the fact were it not for the unfortunate truth that too much of what the U.K. is (and what the U.S. became, by extension) has depended on the Church of England. I fear it may be too late to exterminate the virus of the English Reformation without exterminating the host.
On the other hand, there is talk of repealing the Act of Settlement of 1701 on humanitarian grounds, which is utter trash, but which some legal scholars believe would have the unintended (and salutary, in this poster's view) effect of making Franz von Bayern the de jure king of England, Ireland, Scotland (and France [my apologies for that]). It may be the kingdom's last hope. It couldn't possibly be worse than having a queen consort named Camilla, I might add.
It should have been done by now, but I suspect the Labour Party understands that this last hope for the monarchy may in fact save it, illustrating the adage that leftism can only survive if it violates its own principles.
"But all is not lost. The Mohammedan predilection for public chastisements means that the amputations, stonings and beheadings will be carried out in open air on the town commons. And for those without the BBC, there is always Youtube."
And be thankful for that, Monsieur, because if the past has been any indication, the chance of seeing meaningful and non-skewed BBC on the subject is slim to none.
"Affranchir le musulman de sa religion est le plus grand service qu’on puisse lui rendre."
I'm inclined to agree, although such affranchisement is usually an emotionally riveting and even physically violent affair for both the affrancheur and the affranchi. Given the unnatural demographics of the situation, we could surely agree that it would be desirable to play such an ordeal OUTSIDE of Europe if at all possible.
Giles,
I also ask that you reconsider your Catholic faith. I lapsed for a while and only realized when I came back how little I knew about it. Dig in - it's a bottomless well and alas not enough time.
You won't be sorry and that's a promise but first you must make a commitment. I'll say a decade. God Bless,
I could be wrong (not likely), but the impact of such an article may have left many replies tongue-tied and thrown off the simpler thinking paths. It is rather threatening to most of us to read such findings - especially when those are so carefully presented and analyzed - as only Dr. Trifkovic can. Hence, a few oddball remarks.
I'd also like to correct Gargi by stating that Anglo-Saxons came to England AFTER the Romans:) It is also typical of many liberals and non-Christians alike to generalise the behaviour of Christians and put them all "in the same basket" as it were. You'll find, after a bit of research, that the nature and dynamic of proselytism varies greatly amongst the very various 'Christian' branches. And, as always, the incredible legacy of Eastern Christianity in Byzantium seems to be conveniently overlooked by 'westerners' and 'easterners' alike.