Thursday, February 07, 2008

Sharia don' like it...

Dr Rowan Williams: hairy, untidy twat-faced cunt.

I would like to echo my colleague's assessment of Rowan Williams's latest piece of crap—why can't this man shut his fucking face?
The Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams says the adoption of Islamic Sharia law in the UK is "unavoidable".

The Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams is an utter arsehole who should be strung up by a meathook through his scrotum.
Dr Williams told BBC Radio 4's World at One that the UK has to "face up to the fact" that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system.

Tough fucking shit, frankly. Seriously, every time that Rowan Williams comes out with some piece of bullshit I think, "how can he possibly top this?" But he manages it every time: it's a gift.
Dr Williams argues that adopting some aspects of Sharia law would help maintain social cohesion.

How? How does one subset of citizens living under a different law than the others help with social cohesion, precisely?
For example, Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court.

And what if those Sharia court judgements contravene British law? What then, Williams, you fuckwitted arse?
He says Muslims should not have to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty".

Fuck them, frankly. We are not asking them to choose between "cultural loyalty or state loyalty", we are insisting that those people who live in this country live under the laws of this country. We are a secular country and our law is secular: we are not going to change the law for a bunch of fucking lunatics who believe that their particular sky-fairy has commanded them to live differently from everyone else.

Seriously, fuck them and fuck you too, Williams.

Everyone is equal under the law and that means the law of this land. If these people wish to live under a religious legal system, then might I humbly suggest that they fuck off to some country that has such a system? They might find that they are happier in Iran, Saudi Arabia or Sudan. And the climate's warmer too.

And there is no fucking way that the police should be enforcing this religious law, so how will it be enforced? By "community leaders"? And what happens if they break British law whilst enforcing their Sharia court's decisions?

You, Williams, are a fuckwit and a dangerous fuckwit at that. Oh, who will rid me of this turbulent priest?

[Waits expectantly for four knights to go and murder the bastard.]

Yes, yes, I know I'm not a king but throw me a frickin' bone here*...


* Preferably one of Rowan Williams's.

108 comments:

Vindico said...

Ugh. *shudders*. Most intellectually retarded brain cra I have ever heard. Having people living under different legal systems if just so fucking stupid it doesn't deserve to be reported by the BBC. Unlike a certain court case!
I hope I wake up soon to find this is all a dream.

Little Black Sambo said...

A friend of mine said, "Odd chap, Williams. One minute he's totally intolerant about gay marriage; the next, he's gone all liberal and expects us all to stone our wives".

Newmania said...

Is he quite quite mad ?

Umbongo said...

"we are not going to change the law for a bunch of fucking lunatics who believe that their particular sky-fairy has commanded them to live differently from everyone else."

A bit late for that: read this and a quote " . . speaking at the Islamic Finance and Trade Conference the chancellor [a Mr Brown] said he wanted to make the UK "the gateway for Islamic finance".

He pointed to reforms of the tax system [which include changes in the stamp duty regime] to make Sharia compliance easier"

My comments in italics

Anonymous said...

Perhaps the dozy sod thinks they will not cut off his christian head if he sucks up to them enough. Mind you I do have doubts as to his christianity, seems rather patchy, his sanity isn't looking too good either.

Anonymous said...

*...said the actress to the bishop.

Anonymous said...

If it comes to introducing Sharia family law, I will happily take up arms against anyone who thinks this is a good idea. I'm sure I'm not in the minority in thinking this - unlike the lunatics who seem to believe that elbowing in a more rampantly sexist legal system than our own (and based, we remind ourselves, on a religion that believes women to be inherently inferior) to mediate family law is a good idea.

I for one would be very grateful if Rowan William's sky fairy of choice would hurry up and depose this particular member of his flock. He is an unadulterated arse.

Anonymous said...

"Won't somebody rid me of this troublesome priest!"

Battersea Boy said...

FWIW the Archbishop of Canterbury is right: the adoption of Sharia law into this country has become inevitable.

After the mass immigration of muslims into Britain over the past few years, there is now no way of avoiding it short of civil war.

verity said...

Iain, independently, I think not having seen the Devil's rather robust notice about this issue, has mentioned it on his blog. I have commended all who agree with Iain's rather well-mannered and tempered disapproval, to race over here for a more incendiary take.

Tomrat247 said...

A thought occurs...how do libertarians view polygamy? Especially in light of the recent home office rulings regarding polygamous relationships getting recognition when instituted overseas? I know how people feel about the tax breaks and the welfare (something I think intellegent individuals on both are happy to argue is flagrantly stupid and anti-islamic at the same time), but what about the actual act itself?

James said...

A thought occurs...how do libertarians view polygamy?

My view is people do as they please if it doesn't harm anyone. So what would be the problem?

If women want to share a man and a man can put up with more than one woman go for it.

Alternatively if women want their own hareem and there are willing men then go for it too.

Wouldn't float my boat, but if it floats someone elses, thats not my business, as long as I'm not paying for it.

Mark Wadsworth said...

What James says.

Williams is a indeed a {}

David Gillies said...

Catweazle really is beyond the fucking pale. He is meant to be a Christian priest which means if he were firm in his faith he'd believe that Muslims are heathens who are condemned to hell. He's clearly not fit for purpose and should get the hell out. Any archbish who can make you pine for the days of Carey is obviously a useless twat of the first water. And I say this as a committed atheist in the Dawkins/Hitchens/Dennett mould.

Kay Tie said...

"How? How does one subset of citizens living under a different law than the others help with social cohesion, precisely?"

It's brilliant. I can choose to live under Libertarian Law. It will be the Libertarian Community who will enforce Libertarian Law, and the police won't be able to interfere in our culture: our Community will abolish all the nannying regulations passed since 1997. We will will drink in our own Community bars, pay our own minimal taxes for our own necessary services. We will have our own Community Schools where no Government official will dare to tell us that we can't teach Libertarianism. It will do wonders for social cohesion: there will be millions who will come to live in our Community.

Anonymous said...

''...as long as I'm not paying for it.''

Are you sure you won't be?? Or are all those extra wives going to busy executive types?

And any thought for the kids produced in polygamus relationships?

Andrew Ian Dodge said...

Yep, what James says pretty much sums it up.

ranter said...

The Archdruid of Canterbury. Clueless, stupid and dangerous. I find it quirte bizarre that the only two churchmen who seem to speak anything like commonsense are Bishop Nazir-Ali (Rochester) and John Semantu (York). There's even some Right reverend tosspot up in Oxford supporting the Mozzies desire to broadcast the call to prayer 5 times a day. What is the matter with the so called 'leaders' in the UK today? Do they really hate their history and culture so much?

Frederick Davies said...

Is he stupid or just high on something? Where did this idiot come from anyway, or rather, who put him there?

Machiavelli's Understudy said...

A thought occurs...how do libertarians view polygamy?

I don't think we do have views on polygamy... At least, not where our political philosophy is concerned- that's the whole point- it's none of our business.

As a matter of personal taste, it's an individual concern.

I really don't care either way, so long as it isn't doing me or anybody else any harm and it isn't costing me (as I have skimmed from a few headlines recently that polygamy is to be recognised by the welfare system).

verity said...

Can't Rowans be declared clinically insane and taken away somewhere nice and quiet, and the robust, articulate and strong Dr Senamu be appointed +Canterbury?

BTW, where is Cranmer?

James said...

Are you sure you won't be?? Or are all those extra wives going to busy executive types?

Erm, I am not sure I get your point.

If you are saying wives cost money then someone with enough money would be the only person interested in having many of them.

I would expect most guys that aren't very rich would expect their wives to go out and get a job. Or just wouldn't marry beyond their means - thats the point, do what you want to within your means (because the idea is they don't deserve ANY of anyone's money - in fact no individual would).

As to kids - people can bring them up as they see fit. Thats somewhat the job of parents. The more they have, the more they cost.

If you were thinking of stigma, as it would be perfectly legal (and children can already come from a wide variety of 'family' units) I doubt there would be much of a problem.

Jules said...

williams - you are a filthy fifth columnist. an intellectually lazy anglophobe with a pathetic middle class socialist guilt complex. sharia unavoidable? i don't fucking think so. go get a shave and a haircut you muddle-headed, dress-wearing cunt - and make sure it's with sweeney todd.

verity said...

MU and others - Polygamy is against the law.

Gordon Brown and the ferrets that scamper around the corridors of No 10 are stupid and ignorant. OK, we knew that, but in this instance, there can be no welfare payments from the British taxpayer to polygamous wives because - even if married in a muslim country - their marriages are not legitimate.

Under islam, a man can only take on up to four wives IF HE CAN AFFORD TO KEEP THEM. If he cannot, then he contracted the marriages illegitimately, under the all important moonbat islamic law, and they are NOT HIS WIVES.

So the British taxpayer doesn't have to go out to work to support "wives" who are not, and cannot be, legitimate wives because their marriages are illegal because the "husband" cannot afford to keep them.

So this is more ignorant pandering to the the most primitive element of our society. Yech!

ukipwebmaster said...

Well stone me!

Anonymous said...

I'm fucking sick of hearing about Muslims. Everyone I speak to is sick of them as well, and sick of the pandering to them by idiots like Williams.

chris said...

One law for the Muslims and and one law for the Dhimmi, yes I can really see how that would just great for community cohesion ... not. If Dr Williams think that Sharia law is so great then he should just fuck off to one of those shit holes that have it, along with everybody else so minded.

There is only one solution to this troublesome priest, bring me ... the cockroach sharpener.

mitch said...

Why doesn't he fly to Saudi Arabia and preach the adoption of western law and see how long he survives.
What a total fuckwit!

newc said...

Jesus (no pun intended) can't all these Muslims and their fellow travelers just fuck off somewhere where they will be happy and the laws they like are in force?
I am sick to bloody death hearing about them every sodding day.
Oh and the Archbishops is a fuckwit.

riddler said...

remind me again - what percentage of this country are muslim?

tail wagging the dog....if the dog reference doesn't upset them....

spanner said...

Perhaps one day these so called powers that be will realise that they can't keep on ignoring the majority to appease every minority.
The anger that the majority will surely one day display does not bear thinking about.

Sir C4' said...

The Ayatollah of Cunterbery is without doubt the worst Primate in living memony. We already have a situation in Islamic countries such as Kuwait and Malasya where the decisions of the civil courts on divorce, blasphemy and conversion to a non-Islamic faith have been overruled by the religious courts and that must not be allowed to happen in this country where the law of the land has already been hampered by an unholy alliance of New Labour fascists, EU directives, the PC brigade, European Courts and the loathsome 1998 Human Rights Act.

I am not bigoted against al-Islam in general, but I must also be objective and state that 'modern' Islam as enforced by far too many so-called Muslims is as intolorant, barbaric and inhuman as medieval Christianity and until the Islamic world realises this and makes a real and concerted effort to reform their attitudes towards each other and the 'people of Kuff' (non-believers), we non-Muslims should ourselves be as uncompromising towards their own uncompromising bigotry, violence, racism and intolorance.

Anonymous said...

''Erm, I am not sure I get your point.''

They will be on Welfare (in all likelihood)
Welfare is provided by taxpayers. ergo you will be paying for it.

'As to kids - people can bring them up as they see fit'
Well that's just as well, as mine are starring in a porno I'm filming now.
See how silly 'Libertarian' views are?

Cinnamon said...

The Arschbishop, indeed.

Ein Arsch mit Ohren.

(An arse with ears, as we call them disaffectionatly in Germnay)

John B said...

I assume everyone commenting above would like to remove the Beth Din's existing right to act in civil disputes between Orthodox Jews in the UK (with the permission of both parties)? Because that's all Williams was talking about for Sharia courts...

verity said...

JohnB - No. That is not what Rowan Moonbat was talking about. You are alarmingly ignorant.

Incidentally, the Beth Din does not act in legal matters, as far as I understand it. Jewish religious law does not supercede British (or any other nation's) law. The Jews do not want to take over the world. They don't want to take over Britain. They don't even want converts.

I'm sure you can spot the difference, as uninformed about islam as you all too obviously are. Read some of the koran to see what islam's plans for you are.

I would like to propose, in all seriousness, that islam be declared an illegal, mind-controlling cult.

Shug Niggurath said...

In the name of bein inoffensive to the easily offended we're in dire danger of being pushed aside as this country adopts "Sharia".

The lunatics are in charge of the asylum, the churches, the courts and the government. It really is getting disgusting living under the control of these moonbat fucks.

Matt said...

We are being colonised and we are accepting it blindly.

roadrunner said...

Iam totally pissed off with hearing about sodding Muslims.They are a minority that just happens to have congregated in Labour held constituences, thus holding the Labour party to ransom and have much more sway in this country than they should have.We should start deporting some, starting with those who hold extremist views and their extended famillies.We may then get more cooperation from the moderates who are left and stop this nonsense once and for all.

verity said...

Outlaw islam. It's a dangerous, mind-controlling cult. They have to pray to their moonbat diety five times a day.

Yes, Matt, you are being colonised and blair and brown have removed your weapons. Any complaints you make are labelled "racist" (a religion isn't a race, but words mean what the nomenklatura want them to mean) and get you humiliated by being arrested and taken to court. And you appear in the paper as a lesson to others who might be thinking of speaking out.

I am absolutely astonished what you have allowed to happen to our centuries old British liberties.

John B said...

"JohnB - No. That is not what Rowan Moonbat was talking about. You are alarmingly ignorant."

Yes it is, and you are remarkably mad. The /only/ concrete example he gives in his speech is "but there are ways of looking at marital disputes, for example, which provide an alternative to the divorce courts as we understand them".

This is *exactly* how marital disputes are handled among British Orthodox Jews who opt to use the Beth Din.

John B said...

[PS I've read the Koran and the Torah. Neither of them are really my cup of tea belief-system-wise, although the Torah's a better read]

Anonymous said...

"Dr Williams told BBC Radio 4's World at One that the UK has to "face up to the fact" that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system."

Yes, we already fucking know that you idiotic 60's throwback.In fact most of the welfare-addicted pond-life infesting our council estates don't "relate to our legal system" in that they think abiding by the law only applies to Mugs!! Quite what the effect will be on "social cohesion", of formally applying this novel view of citizenship to Muslims should prove interesting to say the least!

Umbongo said...

As I understand it - and I stand to be corrected - orthodox Jews are divorced in the civil courts but also go through divorce in the Jewish courts. They cannot re-marry in a synagogue unless they have been given a Jewish divorce and a civil divorce. This is not the British state "recognising" Jewish law or Jews not "recognising" civil law: Jewish law only affects Jews. What Williams implied is that Moslems will not recognise civil law if it conflicts with Koranic law. As far as I know (and, again, I stand to be corrected) Jewish law specifically requires that civil law - the law of the land in which they live - must be obeyed even if it conflicts with Jewish law: hence the spectacle of motorised transport travelling through North West London on the Jewish Sabbath.

Newmania said...

We are never going to be the same . We get stoned and then commit adultery they do it the other way round .....

Trevor Phillips gave a sounds rebuff with the sort of calm that carries crushing weight. Dr. Senamu ...yes good thinking that woman ( Verity)

judith said...

Umbongo, you are correct. I listened to the Archbishop's comments on R4, and he appeared to be commending a system whereby Muslims can pick and choose which legal system they wish to deal with.

I've no problem with the Sharia courts dealing with religious issues in matters such as marriage and food preparation, in the same way as does the Beth Din. And if that is really all the Archbishop was saying, he didn't need to say it.

But as a poster on ID's blog has pointed out, Talmudic scholars say "the law of the land is the law". Do we believe the more fanatical members of the Islamic community will settle for that?

verity said...

John B - Rowan Williams clearly would like to see a parallel legal system for islamic immigrants to our shores.

We need to tighten up on the concessions they get, not give them more. For example, it is against the law in Britain to wear a mask in public. Although many of us are grateful that these rather ugly women are civic-minded enough to cover their faces, it is still against the law for them to wear those niqabs. But they get away with it because they say, "It's my religion." Well, no it isn't, you uppity nitwit. Nowhere in the koran or the surahs does mohammad go into the rag trade and tell people what this year's line is.

All he ever said was both women and men should "dress modestly". In other words, don't frighten the camels. That was all he ever said about couture.

Women wearing illegal masks should be told to remove them and, if they refuse, should be arrested.

Another sign of the steady, aggressive advance of this cult - facilitated by the destructive, vicious left, is, schools are serving normal, British children with halal food without their parents' knowledge.

John B said...

"It is against the law in Britain to wear a mask in public."

Cite? Also, don't you think this is the kind of gibberingly mad, illiberal law that oughtn't to be on the books in the first place...?

Homophobic Horse said...

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.

Anonymous said...

John B
You are alarmingly naive. Sharia provides 'an alternative to the divorce courts' in the sense that a Muslim male can divorce himself in about ten seconds, whereas a woman of course can't (after all she's only a woman). That's the sort of shit the depraved Arsebishop is buying into.

Devil's Kitchen said...

Anon,

Are you a total and utter fuckwit or are you just winding me up?

"They will be on Welfare (in all likelihood)
Welfare is provided by taxpayers. ergo you will be paying for it."


No, you fucking prick. The question is about Libertarian attitudes to polygamy: in a Libertarian society there is no state welfare and as such no one else is paying for them.

"'As to kids - people can bring them up as they see fit'
Well that's just as well, as mine are starring in a porno I'm filming now.
See how silly 'Libertarian' views are?"


I'm sorry, but are you seriously trying to advance that as an argument? Fucking hellski...

Rape is sex without consent and counts as a violation of property rights (a person's body is their property).

By their very nature, a child cannot give consent for sex because they are a child and thus cannot give informed consent.

Therefore, if you are making a porn film with children, you are (at the least) an accessory to rape) which is punishable under libertarian philosophy.

If this is your usual level of argument, please piss off and don't trouble me again.

If you are just pig-ignorant, please go away and consider the concepts of property and consent. You may then come back and apologise.

Fucking hell, people are so fucking stupid I wonder why I bother...

DK

e said...

Sharia law, over my dead body!!

.....Errrrr

Genitally challenged anonymous said...

Under English law, people may devise their own way to settle a dispute in front of an agreed third party as long as both sides agree to the process.

Sharia law for civil matters could be in line with this practice and operate along similar lines to Orthodox jewish courts which already exist in the Uk

yokel said...

chris said...

One law for the Muslims and and one law for the Dhimmi,


I think that just about sums it up. At the risk of talking about God in the devil's kitchen, it is worth noting that God said (in Numbers 15 vv 15-16) that we should have ONE law that applies both to ourselves, and to the stranger in our midst. The Druid Williams doesn't even know his own Bible!

Newmania said...

GCA

I wondered if elements of Sharia law might be created under contract law but I think you`ll find that such a contract would be unenforceable otherwise any community could contract out of legal rights . I take it that duress of some sort would be assumed . The point about Jewish courts is specious there are of course Episcopal courts but they are subject to English law
You can have a rugby club drinking court and there are such things I `m afraid the word has confused you. The suggestion here is that this law should have recognition within the English legal system . That is clearly a ludicrous idea.
I have to say DK that Libertarianism does have a problem with valuing communities and the communities derivation of rights as it is at heart a universal right based idea. It is difficult for you to explain why there should be any special place afforded to the bells of Oxford as against the megaphones of the aggressive Islamic fascists . Seeing no need to be fair to outsiders I do not have a conundrum to solve , for me rights come a part of package with responsibility sand membership of an ethnic group. I am tolerant that elsewhere there may be different values to an extent but intolerant of the incursions of scruffy jabbering throwbacks using a semi digested Liberalism to advance with the arrogance of a new Raj.

Newmania said...

I think you are papering over a bit of problem further back DK , there is a book out by Julian Baggini dealing with the point at which communitarian and Liberal ideas clash which is good on this .
I think you would like him a lot actually quite an original thinker

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Baggini

Henry North London said...

You know I knew as soon as I heard it on the tv that there would be a blog post here calling him a cunt of the highest order, You havent disappointed me.

Anyone got a Luger and we can show him Sharia law for treasonable offences

Beaman said...

I couldn't agree more with this post. Roll on the Bishop of Rochester, the Right Reverend Dr Michael Nazir-Ali.

verity said...

The Archbishop of York is my candidate. The brilliant Sentamu. A sharp, glinting intelligence, an unwavering moral compass and very articulate.

fallaci was right said...

The muslim hordes in this country are an ever increasing fifth column and scum like Rowan Williams are collaborating with these hostile aliens who don't just want sharia law for themselves but, ultimately, for all of us.

It's time we woke up.

VeryFuckingCynical said...

Forgive my ignorance, but is this the same Sharia law that stones raped women to death? If it is, then far from tolerating it, we should be attempting to stamp it out all over the world. WTF???

verity said...

VFC - Well, yes, they do stone raped women to death, but it is the women's own fault. They failed to produce four males who witnessed the rape, so you can see the logic.

Anonymous said...

Even if Wurzel Gummidge's suggestion had merit (which it doesn't) there's still the small matter of the inevitable coercion of women into accepting an Islamic settlement by their family, just as they are now coerced into marrying the village idiot in some shithole in Sylhet in the name of family "honour".

The supposed rantings of some sadistic theoretical deity should have no place at all in this countries legal system, as long as the majority oppose it. If that pisses off some bearded power-hungry "community leaders", then tough. In this global "marketplace" of legal systems, there are plenty of jurisdictions that offer the sort of backward, repressive misogyny that good Muslims appear to crave, so perhaps they should take their business there rather than bagering the rest of us via fifth columnists.

In any case, I cont see how any law giving sharia any binding powers could possibly be compatible with human rights law, given that sharia is entirely slewed against women in almost every case, including their ability to tell the truth.

Williams has clearly given no thought at all to the actual impact on so-called cohesion. His twisted, self-flagellating 'logic' will ultimately end in civil war or a holocaust in some distant future.

Anonymous said...

Islam is like a cancer eating away at the very fabric of our society.

I would rather see civil war in this country than any form of sharia law.
So Rowan Williams and all those PC fuckwits should take note that not all of us will stand idly by and watch this country go down the toilet without a fight.

lettersfromatory said...

As I was saying on my blog this morning, I think you captured the mood of this country rather nicely in your post. Nice work.

Rod said...

And here is the news from the BBC

Muslim, Islam blah blah blah,
Muslim, Islam blah blah blah,
Muslim, Islam blah blah blah,
Muslim, Islam blah blah blah,
Muslim, Islam blah blah blah,

and now the weather.

James said...

Well that's just as well, as mine are starring in a porno I'm filming now.
See how silly 'Libertarian' views are?


If you think thats the zinger that will make us realize the error of our ways your dumber than a box of rocks.

Thats the best you could do?

I refer you to the devils explanation of the difference between an adult who is free to make their own choices without harming others, and children who are not.

I also refer you to his comments about stupid people.

Back to the daily mail for you my friend.

Colonel Privet said...

I've always thought that Williams was a fuckwit of the first order. If he wasn't Archbishop, surely he'd be in one of those nice bedrooms with the padded wallpaper by now...

Rachel Miller said...

Just FYI for those interested in the role of the Jewish courts and their relationship to the British legal system, Melanie Phillips's latest diary entry is very informative.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/

She also gives the background to the BBC interview with the Archbishop and was at the lecture yesterday evening where he went into more detail. A very interesting read.

ukipwebmaster said...

Dhim and Dhimerer?

Roger Thornhill said...

Jules said...

williams - you are a filthy fifth columnist. an intellectually lazy anglophobe with a pathetic middle class socialist guilt complex. sharia unavoidable? i don't fucking think so. go get a shave and a haircut you muddle-headed, dress-wearing cunt - and make sure it's with sweeney todd.

2/07/2008 05:16:00 PM


Seconded.

Fidothedog said...

Maybe the good Arch Bishop would like to explain these lines used by jihadists to impose Sharia law in many parts of the world:

Qur'an:9:5 "Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war."

Anonymous said...

He really is a comedy beardy vicar isn't he? Except it's not fucking funny.

As far as I'm concerned, Shariah financing is fine - if people want to tie themselves up in expensive knots in order to pretend they're not paying interest then fair enough - all to the good of our financial services sector and crucially - it's no skin off our noses. However, to suggest that allowing Islamic mortgages sets a precedent for the less charming bits of Shariah, is bollocks.

Serf said...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/sentenced-to-death-afghan-who-dared-to-read-about-womens-rights-775972.html

I take it the Archbishop wants to see this kind of thing in the UK:

A young man, a student of journalism, is sentenced to death by an Islamic court for downloading a report from the internet

Devil's Kitchen said...

I have taken the unusual step of removing the last two comments. Aside from being slightly distasteful (and one possibly libellous), they were entirely off-topic.

DK

John B said...

"Melanie Phillips's latest diary entry is very informative."

if by "very informative" you mean "bigoted lying bollocks", then you're 100% right.

John B said...

"Another sign of the steady, aggressive advance of this cult - facilitated by the destructive, vicious left, is, schools are serving normal, British children with halal food without their parents' knowledge."

This is satire, right? On the off-chance that not, what the *fucking hell* is wrong with serving children halal food?

Anonymous said...

What the hell is wrong with serving Halal food, its simple you dimwit, it breaks our laws on the slaughter of animals and has taken away the right to have a choice of eating meat which has been killed as humanely as possible.

As for Sharia banking have you looked at the investment side of things, invest in companies that do not produce alcohol, pork products, gambling, Insurance, Banking etc. And why is that? The thing about Shria is that you can not pick and chose what is applied or not. Though I agree with the sentiments of over-charging Muslims for their stupidity. We have to make sure that all the profitable companies buy an opeating unit with unclean products so that they are forced to sell at the bottom of the markt, now that would be fun!!!

verity said...

3:00 pm. Thank you. While taking away something's life can not be deemed "humance", we have laws in this country to try to ensure that it is done with as humanely as possible. That halal nonsense is against the law in Britain and every last halal slaughterer and butcher's shop should be closed for contravening our laws. This would include Jewish kosher slaughter as well. So be it.

Serving food to children that has been killed by torture is repulsive and their parents are rightly angry. Given that islamics are, so far, a small if rather noisy minority in this country, the leftist schools have no excuse at all for catering to them, except self-righteousness and furthering their own hatred of Britain.

By the way, anonymous, thank you for your defence, but there is absolutely no reason to accord this practice respect by capitalising the word halal. It is disgusting enough with a small h.

Islamic banking is most entertaining, as is their business sense. Without oil, these people would still be squatting in the sand. For sure they are not capable of creating wealth.

Newmania said...

Bloody hell DK you should kepp those comments in a jar. What on earth could they have said ?

John B said...

Given the raving bigoted nonsense that's being talked by people who haven't been deleted, I'm also slightly in awe of whatever the deletees said.

On halal, cutting an animal's throat with a sharp blade *doesn't cause it any pain* (ever cut your finger with a sharp knife? Note the way it doesn't hurt til several minutes later...), while lining up animals to be shot in the head with a bolt-gun is hardly humane-tacular. Only a bigoted moron would believe that halal animals have suffered any more than conventionally killed animals...

Henry North London said...

Ok time for you to all know that All New Zealand lamb is halal

verity said...

John B - The animals are aware that they are bleeding from the throat. This is alarming to any mammal.

The apologists for islam seem never to have a positive thing to say about this curious cult. All they do is try to take the high road with regard to other posters. Very childish.

Where do you stand on the statements in the koran that Jews are descended from pigs and monkeys? Apart from an expression of hatred, this statement has absolutely no logic - by which I mean, it is impossible to find a sane jumping off point for it.

Where do you stand on the requirement that a woman who is raped has to have four male witnesses to the rape - a requirement so surreal as to be on the verge of lunacy - otherwise, the raped woman will be judged by sharia law to have committed adultery and will be sentenced to be buried up to her neck and stoned to death.

What about women being disallowed from shaking hands with a man. What? (Not all islamic societies have this paranoid rule, but some of the more primitive, which is just about all of them, do.)

How about hanging men born homosexual?

Apologists for islam who seem to believe that taking the high ground somehow elevates them intellectually, rather than revealing the paucity of their knowledge - never address these, and many other, issues.

These primitive people were forced down the throats of the British who didn't want them then, and don't want them now. The Brits I know, however, seem to be perfectly happy that Jews and Hindus are in our midst.

BTW, I wonder how the fragrant Inayat Bungalow Boy is reacting to all this. And his boss, Bari Bad Barnett.

Twig said...

There must be some positives; example: Polly Toynbee in a burqa !

John B said...

Re halal: I've seen animals killed in several ways, and (aside from a distance shot in the head with a rifle) kosher slaughter was the one in which they appeared least distressed. I'm not an animal psychologist, oddly enough, but I've not seen anyone who knows what they're talking about (rather than city sentimentalists) seriously claim it's any worse than industrial slaughter.

Re Jews: the Koran also says that they're People of the Book who deserve respect and whose food you can share. Oddly enough, religious texts tend to be conflicted and weird.

Re rape: yes, obviously the fact you need four male witnesses to convict is stupid - however, you also need four male witnesses to convict for adultery.

Re no hand-shaking: it's not, as you admit, a religious requirement. That's like saying "what about people being beaten to death by drunken thugs? It doesn't happen in all Western communities, but it happens in the more barbaric ones".

Re killing gays: yes, that's an appalling thing; I'm glad we've (mostly) stopped doing that over the last 150 years. Do you think the reason gays still get murdered in Jamaica is because of Christianity?

Anonymous said...

John B you are a moron, give me a choice between having my throat slit and hung up to bleed to death and having my brain smashed in is a no brainer, except for someone like you who does not seem to have one. I don't know why I bother with such a bigotted moron like you.

Repeat after me, slowly of course so you get it:

I T I S A G A I N S ' T T H E L A W ! ! !

Anonymous said...

It would be just typical of this country that non-Muslim children fed Halal meat unknowingly would then have their parents prosecuted for cruelty to animals, how long before NuLabour tries that one!!

John B said...

So because I know something about animal slaughter, and you know fuck all, *I'm* a bigoted moron? (and as it happens, if someone were to kill me, I'd be pretty indifferent as to whether they lined me up in a queue of soon-to-be-murderees and then shot me in the head, or whether they slit my jugular - there's only 10 seconds' consciousness after the latter, none of whihc involves pain).

Also, it's not against the law.

Anonymous said...

Of course you are a bigot and moron, I bet your mummy still peels your apples for you, maybe it would be better if you rushed over to Iraq and asked to discuss Halal slaughter with the local insurgents, I am sure they will oblige.

verity said...

John B, also known as Terribly Silly Person: It doesn't matter that the koran also says that Jews are people of the book. It's irrelevant, because it also says they are descended from pigs and monkeys. And every word in the koran is absolutely true, because mohammad was a prophet and knew everything, actually.

Re no hand-shaking: it's not, as you admit, a religious requirement. That's like saying "what about people being beaten to death by drunken thugs? It doesn't happen in all Western communities, but it happens in the more barbaric ones".

No, I do not admit that it is not a religious requirement. Why the hell do you think women refuse to shake hands with men if it's not a religious requirement? It's because it's the idea of "modesty", which is el numero uno rule to control women in islam. These people are nothing if not jumpy about sex. What I said is, in some of the more enlightened societies with large numbers of islamics, this rule is ignored. That's like saying "what about people being beaten to death by drunken thugs?

No, it's not.

I have no idea why some gays get murdered in Jamaica. But the key word in your sentence is "murdered". These deaths aren't legally commanded by a deity, but are unlawful killings and the perpetrators will be tried and punished. Attempting to conflate the two issues demonstrates the level of your desperation to show what a clever lad you are.

Anyway, your a troll who has found a thread to infest and I will not be responding further to your fatuous remarks. The issue here is the raving loony Archbish of Cant.

Roger Thornhill said...

re Halal: It is all a branding exercise. The law, AFAICT, is "don't eat roadkill", which has been puffed up in typical fashion to be control freakery.

Give them Kosher meat. 'bout the same deal, right? Oh no, that would not be 'permitted'!

Our country is infested with self-loathers.

John B said...

"your a troll who has found a thread to infest" - the fact that this comment comes from Verity makes me proud. It'd be as if Mad Jack McMad, the maddest man in all Scotland, were to call me a loony.

@ Roger - Muslims *are* allowed to eat kosher meat (Orthodox Jews aren't allowed to eat halal meat, because kosher requirements are slightly stricter).

Rachel Miller said...

'John B said...
"Melanie Phillips's latest diary entry is very informative."

if by "very informative" you mean "bigoted lying bollocks", then you're 100% right.'

Would you care to enlighten me as to which parts of Melanie's post are 'bigoted lying bollocks'? Or are you simply making assumptions based on your own prejudices?

John B said...

The entire diatribe is bigoted (see: the final paragraph suggesting that Williams is cowering before Muslim terrorists), while her claim that the current practice re the Beth Din is any different from what Dr Williams was talking about re sharia courts was a lie.

Henry North London said...

I can see this is developing into name calling

Get back to the topic

Im a Hindu and I get frightened

I drove to Bolton one evening and I was a little shocked to see all the kids coming out of the Madrasa in skull caps It freaked me a fourth generation immigrant and here Dr Williams ( doctorate in divinity and putting ones foot it in) is saying that we must accede to muslim demands Well I say never

When in Rome do as the Romans do or get out

JuliaM said...

Well, looks like john b was indeed 'simply making assumptions based on (his) own prejudices?'

As usual.

Anonymous said...

This John B is a complete twat, he is definately anti-semite because he attacked Mel without reading what she said. It took him ages to come back with an aswer as he was most probably reading it for 5 hours to undersdtand it

Roger Thornhill said...

"@ Roger - Muslims *are* allowed to eat kosher meat (Orthodox Jews aren't allowed to eat halal meat, because kosher requirements are slightly stricter)."

So why did the school not use Kosher?

john b said...

@ Julia - no, as you might have been able to gather from the fact that I answered the question.

@ anonymous - you're a satirist, right? 1) I read the piece earlier in the day, when DK pointed it out on my own blog 2) even if I had criticised the piece without reading it, that would make me a silly commenter, not an antisemite.

@ Roger - I imagine the reasons include: it costs more; it tastes worse (because kosher meat, unlike halal, is soaked and salted to remove all the blood); there weren't any Orthodox Jewish children at the school...

Tomrat247 said...

off-topic again (but serious kudos to filling this comment post up DK) but when precisely do we classify adulthood to occur? If a child cannot make informed decisions but an adult can when does the transition take place? Sorry for the straw man but if we were to take the Bar Mitzvah to be this date I would think this is far too early - when?

VeryFuckingCynical said...

John B, slitting your throat, finger or any other innervated appendage should hurt you instantaneously if you are not suffering from some sort of neuropathy. I've cut my finger plenty times. It hurts right away. Get your glucose, B12 and folate levels measured. Those animals feel the pain of the injury as well as the distress of bleeding to death.

JuliaM said...

But you didn't answer the question, you merely stated 'The entire diatribe is bigoted..' as if, once you had declared it to be so (with no evidence proffered for same), that was the end of the argument. The final paragraph is, in my opinion, quite valid.

C-, must do better.

Henry North London said...

Anyone seen kill it cook it eat it on the Beeb?

They show modern slaughter

Just having an induced epileptic fit doesnt mean you dont feel it its just that most epileptic fits induce unconsciousness

Anonymous said...

This blog is a creepy joke. It calls itself the devil and then claims to be spokesman for the church fuck off. This is crap. Why is it the sun newspaper which is just scum slag newspaer has the gall insult the pious bishop. He di not call for the retun of sharia law extreme elemets he called for moderate lemts of it. By the way you lotinsulting a pious decent man so what utterly mad wsick creeps you are. He is a pious man you are half drunk creeps.

Roger Thornhill said...

johnB. That is not really the point, though is it? The point was it was imposed without consent.

john b said...

Err, the point is that "eating legally killed meat" isn't the sort of thing that normally requires consent, unless the parents have sent a note saying "please only feed my child meat that has been killed in a manner that fits with my personal prejudices and superstitions".

The Muslim parents sent such a note; any non-Muslim parents who (despite the fact that Christians are explicitly allowed to eat meat killed by Muslims, Jews or whoever the hell else happens to be set up as a butcher) sent such a note would find their child not being served the halal meat.

Quite how you'd phrase such a note would be difficult. "I hate Muslims, so only want my child to have meat that hasn't been polluted by their filthy hands" might sound a bit bigoted, but would also be honest. I suppose "I know fuck all about animal slaughter or pain perception, so I believe halal slaughter is cruel even though it isn't" would be a little better...

Aussie Bystander said...

We are a secular country and our law is secular: we are not going to change the law for a bunch of fucking lunatics who believe that their particular sky-fairy has commanded them to live differently from everyone else.

Sadly, this is not true. How on earth you can come out with this only parades your ignorance of the country you live in.

The UK is a Protestant state, having unified Church and State from Henry VIII, it has a state religion of which Dr Beardie is the Archbishop and the Monarchy is the Head.

If you don't believe me, go to Northern Ireland, where they'll put you straight on a few facts. Its the one thing that everyone agrees on: the British state is NOT neutral about religion.

Once you lift the fragile fig leaf of Parliament's claims, you find out the reality.

The United Kingdom is a fully sectarian state. It has no truck with the notion of freedom of conscience or freedom of religious belief and never has. The UK's history for the last six hundred years is one long tale of sectarianism and sectarian insurrection brutally put down, only to appear one, two or three generations later.

That's the problem with most Britons. They have no idea what state they're in.

kiki said...

A片,A片,A片,A片,A片,A片情趣用品,情趣,A片,AIO,AV,AV女優,A漫,免費A片,AIO交友愛情館,愛情公寓,情色,情色貼圖,色情小說,情色小說,情色文學,色情,寄情築園小遊戲,色情遊戲,嘟嘟情人色網,一葉情貼圖片區,情色論壇,色情影片,微風成人,嘟嘟成人網,成人,18成人,成人影城,成人圖片區,成人圖片,成人貼圖,UT聊天室,聊天室,豆豆聊天室,哈啦聊天室,尋夢園聊天室,聊天室尋夢園,視訊聊天室,視訊聊天

麻將,台灣彩卷,六合彩開獎號碼,運動彩卷,六合彩,線上遊戲,矽谷麻將,明星3缺一,橘子町,麻將大悶鍋,台客麻將,公博,game,,中華職棒,麗的線上小遊戲,國士無雙麻將,麻將館,賭博遊戲,威力彩,威力彩開獎號碼,龍龍運動網,史萊姆,史萊姆好玩遊戲,史萊姆第一個家,史萊姆好玩遊戲區,樂透彩開獎號碼,遊戲天堂,好玩遊戲,遊戲基地,無料遊戲王,好玩遊戲區,麻將遊戲,好玩遊戲區,小遊戲,遊戲區,電玩快打,cs online情趣用品,情趣,情趣商品,A片,AIO交友愛情館,AIOAV女優,AV,A漫,免費A片,本土自拍,自拍,愛情公寓,情色,情色貼圖,色情小說,情色小說,情色文學,色情,寄情築園小遊戲,色情遊戲,色情影片,情色網,色情網站,微風成人區,微風成人,嘟嘟成人網,成人,18成人,成人影城,成人圖片區,成人圖片,成人貼圖,成人文章,成人小說,UT聊天室,聊天室,豆豆聊天室,哈啦聊天室,尋夢園聊天室,聊天室尋夢園,080中部人聊天室,080聊天室,中部人聊天室,080苗栗人聊天室,苗栗人聊天室,免費視訊聊天,免費視訊,視訊聊天室,視訊聊天情趣用品,情趣,情趣商品,愛情公寓,情色,情色貼圖,色情小說,情色小說,情色文學,色情,寄情築園小遊戲,色情遊戲,AIO交友愛情館,一葉情貼圖片區,情色論壇,色情影片,色情網站,微風成人區,微風成人,嘟嘟成人網,成人,18成人,成人影城,成人圖片,成人貼圖,成人圖片區,成人文章,成人小說,A片,AV女優,AV,A漫,免費A片,自拍,UT聊天室,聊天室,豆豆聊天室,哈啦聊天室,尋夢園聊天室,聊天室尋夢園,080中部人聊天室,080聊天室,080苗栗人聊天室情趣用品,情趣,情趣商品,愛情公寓,情色,情色貼圖,色情小說,情色小說,情色文學,色情,做愛,寄情築園小遊戲,色情遊戲,AIO交友愛情館,AIO,色情影片,情色網,微風成人,嘟嘟成人網,成人,18成人,成人影城,成人圖片,成人貼圖,成人圖片區,成人文章,成人小說,成人電影,麗的色遊戲,自拍,A片,AV女優,AV,A漫,視訊交友網,視訊,視訊交友,免費視訊聊天室,免費視訊,視訊聊天,視訊聊天室,UT聊天室,聊天室,豆豆聊天室,哈啦聊天室,尋夢園聊天室,聊天室尋夢園,中古車,二手車情色貼圖,日本A片,A片下載,情色A片,AV女優,A漫,免費A片,微風成人,成人網站,成人光碟,嘟嘟成人網,成人,成人影城A片,A片,A片下載,做愛,成人電影,18成人,日本A片,情色小說,情色電影,成人影城,自拍,情色論壇,成人論壇,情色貼圖,情色,免費A片,成人,成人光碟