The arabic word ”Shariah” and Dr. Rowan Williams
I was expecting to hear of some kind of anti-Islamic rant by the Archbishop of Canterbury. I was expecting to reply saying something like ‘as a man of such a high position within the Anglican Church, he should adopt a Unitarian position based on his presumed knowledge’ but I’m wrong and offer my apologies to him. Dr Rowan Williams does seem to be wise in the way of religion.
Gordon Brown said a year or two ago, he was going to change financial regulations to allow ‘halal’ banking. So I wonder why the penal law can’t also be changed?
Actually I wouldn’t be surprized if English civil law, like many things wasn’t already based on Islamic law. Islam flourished while Europe was living is the dark ages. Much of science has an Islamic ’empire’ (for want of a better description) hetitage. For example, and I don’t know if this is true, but the mortarboards are said by some to have been the Qur’an which people placed on their heads to symbolise the acumen of wisdom and knowledge. The word Chemistry and Sugar derive from Islam as does distillation.
I wonder, why when foreigners go to Islamic countries and they break the law, the anti-Muslim west (think I’ve just answered my own question) screams out an Islamic punishment should not befall the criminal, yet Muslims in the UK are expected to abide by UK law. Not only that but I’m pretty sure that in some countries, a two-tier system does exist, Sharia law applied to Muslims and other laws applied to non-Muslims. (caveat: In countries where a heterogeneous population isn’t significant) is only applied. Anyway, many UK laws are an ASS laws and deserve to be broken – like not demonstrating within 1Km of Parliament, and that reminds me, laws which the non-Muslim Brits break (see here) such as going to war, committing genocide, bugging MP’s offering money for K’s and P’s, scuttling SFO investigations into Saudi arms deals etc… etc…
Bloody stinking hypocrites.
Listen to this condescending crap…
“For the Conservatives, shadow community cohesion minister Baroness Warsi said: “The Archbishop’s comments are unhelpful and may add to the confusion that already exists in our communities.” 
Endquote. – What confusion??? What survey have you done or seen which says there is ‘confusion’ Jeez. I’m sure glad we got dem brainy pepol in awr gubberment.
What about this:
Mark Pritchard, Tory MP for the Wrekin, in Shropshire, said the Archbishop’s comments were “naive and shocking” and he accused him of “pseudo-theological appeasement”. 
Mark Pritchard has of course spent many hours studying theology and general philosophy (actually I tried researching his but drew a blank as to his knowledge background)
But wait Pritchard highlights something I’ve been curious about for a long time. He says in the same article:
He said: “The Archbishop should be standing up for our Judeo-Christian principles that underpin British criminal law that have been hard fought for.
I want to know where this Judeo-Christian amalgamation alliance thing comes from, and I want to know how British people feel about living under Judeo law? Personally, if it was original Jewish law, I’d be fine with it. If however it was law based on Rabinnical distortions and fakery in the Talmud, I’d strongly oppose living under it. Does anyone know when exactly the Judeo component of British law came into being?
The liberal democrats and neoLabour buffoons say something similar. Funny how man-made secular law which by its very nature is flexible, suddenly becomes untouchable and rigid when Muslims are involved.
But still… Given that the majority of the population are non-Muslims, Muslims cannot realistically expect the majority of non-Muslims