The Centre For Social Cohesion

Dear Mr Richerby, You, like Rowan Williams in my opinion are mistaken in saying that you have Muslim friends. If you read the post which I presented on the 9th february at 11.27am, which is backed up with evidence and not mere rhetoric you would see that it is not possible for you to have any Muslim friends. Of course if you are a Muslim, then it is possible for you to have Muslim friends.

Dear N, I see that you are so "not oppressed" by Sharia Law that you were not even willing to give your name on your post. What are you afraid of? If I believed that I knew the Truth there is no way that I would remain anonymous. I believe that your personal theology is a fear based one.

Dear Anonymous, I see that you too are also afraid to reveal your identity. For opposite reasons to N., I suspect. Perhaps you are afraid of some one taking it upon themselves to play God and "punish" you for the supposed "sins" that you have committed in their angry deluded opinion.

Dear all! why is it that these two Muslim women do not reveal thier identities? I can only speculate. Perhaps N. and Anonymous will answer my queistion.

Yours Trevor DeLuca.

Anonymous:

'You don't know what you've got til it's gone'.

You were raised in a free society. Secularism and liberalism allows you choice.

From this position of strength you think it is pretty cool to be an 'up-yours' 'in-your-face' defiant Muslim.

Well, that's fine. We all have our teenage rebellions.

But radical Islam is like a lobster trap. You can get into it, but you can't get out of it. One way ticket, babe. It 'encultures'; it doesn't 'acculturate'. If your generation gets its way, your daughters and grand-daughters will not have the free choice that you have had. They will be imprisoned in a culture that does not allow them free expression or choice. They will be born inside the lobster trap as submissive subordinate females.

If you think this is pretty cool, that's fine, but you're a hypocrite to deny them the freedom that was given you, and which you chose to abuse by locking the door and throwing away the key.

Everything you enjoy came from 'the west' including the right to reject secular liberal democracy and embrace radical Islam.

Well done Douglas Murray for your passionate stance on Thursday's Newsnight. How good to hear at last someone unambiguously attacking this dangerous, diversive and disgusting creed. Well done for reducing the pusillanimous Bishop to blustering and the liberal Koran scholar (surely an oxymoron?)to anger.
Anyone who doubts what Sharia stands for need not go to Saudi Arabia, or Sudan or Iran (which, by the way, featured on this morning's Today programme with a scholar arguing that stoning to death had the democratic support of the population). Read the recent report from the Centre for Social Cohesion 'Crimes of the Community: honour-based violence in the UK' to see how Muslim women are treasted in this country. Disgusting. Why do we stand for it?

Has anyone seen stoning women to death in Iran and Afghanistan and other Islamic countries, if not, try to look at it (very emotional) and then you will understand in practice the true meaning of Sharia Law and the extend to which human being suffer under this law, there would be not need to listen to anyone to explain it (Sharia Law) to you. Freedom simply means to be free from inhumane practice and inequality and backed beliefs. Therefore, those people who try to excuse Mr Williams’ speech under the slogan of free speech is totally baseless, they should think twice (forget about liberalism) because if you are then you are practically defending Sharia Law, under which there would be no free speech. Think about it, we all know-at least is very much easy to find about it just look the news- that there is not much freedom in Islamic countries, therefore, we do not need anyone to come forward and tell us the otherwise, for we have seen it and experienced it and if we agree that Sharia Law is against humanity then let’s not allow anyone to come forward and give him/her a free coverage in BBC to justify it, so when someone like Tariq Ramadam defends Sharia Law (and saying there are different interpretations of Islam) he is ultimately defending Islamic Republic of Iran, Taliban, Saudi Arabia, Islamic Brotherhood, Hamas, Hezbollah in Lebanon etc.

Those people who defend Sharia Law are those who have political agenda and supported and guided by political Islam and Islamic parties form overseas (e.g. Islamic Brotherhood).

I think we should use this opportunity to attack Sharia Law and stop those people who practice Sharia Law under the slogan of multicultural society and different communities. We need to force government to end this chaos of multi-laws in UK, we must have one civil law based on the respect of human beings and equal for all. We must end the dark force of Abu Hamza and Hizbul al Tahrir in this society.

In response to 'N'; with all due respect you by your admission are still a teenager and I wonder what the source of your thinking is. It seems very ideological and politicised and in tone with Hizb ut Tahrir propoganda. I beg to differ. I gave my experience of living under shariah and coming from a western liberal secular background I am able clearly to critique and compare the two. I will tell all readers that the shariah is as Yasmin Alibai stated in her Independent article yesterday, a set of laws derived and defined by men.I rest my case. To say that wearing hijab and jilbab[overcoat] gives you dignity I argue that is fine for you. If we lived under shariah all sections of female society would have it imposed on them so it is good you like wearing yours.Other women do not. They often have no choice but to face divorce and removal of their children if they dare to go without it. There are many ways to look modest and dignified. You are following a strict shariah interpretation of khimar. The problem lies in the fact organisations like Hizb ut Tahrir and Salafism has now raised the bench mark for all women. The outcome is dreadful for mainstream muslim females. If you think men do not look at your chest sister you are also probably very wrong.Read Ed Husain's book and you will see what the imposition of shariah female dress code has failed to do regarding louche behaviour, rape and molestation of women there.

To quote the Archbishop's speech:

"But to return to our main theme: I have been arguing that a defence of an unqualified secular legal monopoly in terms of the need for a universalist doctrine of human right or dignity is to misunderstand the circumstances in which that doctrine emerged . . ."

What Williams was doing was pointing out (very opaquely mind you) is that the Enlightenment aimed to bring religious freedom. (I think he is very generous in this as the French version gave birth to Fascism and Communism but that is what people think the Enlightenment brought). Now though the state is encroaching on the freedom of religious people by imposing politically correct Enlightenment values such as equality on religious communities. This is the point of 'universalist' - one law for everyone. Thus religious communities are no longer allowed to discriminate against homosexuals - the Bishop of Hereford was fined £50 000 last week for doing what Bishops had always done. Catholic adoption agencies are not allowed to operate on Catholic principles, church schools are not allowed to teach church moral teaching on homosexuality and churches are not even allowed to favour employing members of their own denomination.

So what the archbishop was trying to do was demand that religious communities be allowed to continue governing themselves according to their own rules and laws and not have secular values imposed on them by an increasingly intolerant and totalitarian state. That he chose to mention Sharia obscured this important point.

The purpose of the law is to create a space within which people can set up their own self-governing communities based upon whatever rules they choose as long as they do not violate the simple Common Law. Negative liberty Berlin called it. So Catholics and Anglicans have a non democratic polity whereas Quakers have the opposite. The Catholics think homosexuality is a sin whereas the Quakers think the opposite. No problem there until the State decides to impose its PC morality on institutions that are 1000s of years old.

Apart from that Williams talked about British law. What's that then!!!! We have English law and Scots law. Two different legal systems within the same country for 2 different people living in the same country. The guy's obviously Welsh and hates to admit that the Welsh are governed by English law.

Dear Sir Only a small minority will have taken the trouble to study the Archbishop’s lecture, and only a minority of those who have actually read the lecture will understand the meaning of its content. In fact the lecture does not contain anything that is either sound or original. The lecture is thoughtful but, at the same time, it is both discursive and inconclusive: it lacks a coherent or consistent philosophical structure. This subject has already been explored, at length, by a number of internationally renowned scholars, to which the Archbishop makes reference in his lecture. I would suggest that it would be wise if he were now maintain an extended period of silence, at least with respect to this particular subject. The Archbishop may have done us all service, in so far as the reaction to his essay, which has been almost universally hostile, indicates a deeply imbedded distaste for sharia law - whatever it may happen to be. The very idea is clearly unacceptable to the host community at large. Stuart E Hopkins, APhS.

Well said Douglas Murray!
It is high time we had an eloquent and informed spokesman to air the real concerns of ordinary people.
For too long, our politicians and loonie lefties have been pandering to Muslims and acting as apologists for our true British cultural values. I do not profess to be a practising Christian but I value the standards which the faith sets.How Williams can sell us down the river like this when he should be promoting Christianity is beyond me. Labour has betrayed Britain with its open door policy and incompetence for years.
Stand up for what is right and listen to the ground swell of very experienced opinion aired throughout the country by normal people who are sick of having Islam rammed down their throats. Who on earth could give credit to a faith which advocates that its followers should make a long trip just to chuck rocks at pillars with the risk of being trampled to death?(Haj).
Already we have a Muslim Parliament a Muslim this and that and no serious person can truly believe it is right to give another milimeter to them. It is time we took some back and regained our territory for British people.
They like our benefits system well enough. If they must stay here, then they should get to like our laws as much.

I ask you all to consider asking a Muslim girl about her 'oppression' before you label her oppressed! I am a Muslim teenager and I for one am not oppressed and nither are any of my friends. The hijab (head covering) that I wear gives me my dignity..and partial identity, the long the dress that I wear also preserves my dignity...hence the reason why I am respected amongs guys and girls and they speak to ME and NOT my chest! Men and women have equal rights...what difference you see is set by culture and not the religion (two very different things)

The shariah isnt evil nor the Qur'an. The teachings of the Qur'an encourage inclusiveness between other religions. If we Muslims and the Qur'an are anti-socials, I ask you to consider why the Qur'an allows A muslim to marry someone who is not a Muslim but a 'beliver of the books'...these be Jewish or Christian!

If the shariah was implemented in a sense then who knows there may be less teenage pregnacy, equality, inclusion, easier divorce laws, less drink/drunk violence and disturbance.

Here it from me, a young muslim GIRl...We are not oppressed but dignified and we are proud Muslims and Brits!

Ask the general Muslims, law abiding citizens, about their feelings and thought and I think you would find that many of us agree with alot of the british culture and laws.

Mr Murray, you profess to be a representative of the Centre for Social Cohesion. I am therefore disappointed that - by deliberately misrepresenting what the Archbishop has said - you have stirred up Social Division in our country.

Your remonstrations on Newsnight last night (8th Feb) were not only rude and inflamed, but they were based on a misunderstanding of what the Archbishop had said. His views were painstakingly constructed to be balanced. But you chose to ignore that and invent something the Archbishop did not say. That is fanning the flames of unrest, and is not conducive to Social Cohesion.

There are many versions of Sharia and are almost all violent.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=d81a5112-a188-4290-87e9-1050b7c28db0

Leading Muslim intellectuals such as Tariq Ramadan seem to be happy to remain silent about Sharia violence in other parts of the world to an extent that can only be described as duplicitous.

The outcry against the Archbishop was because he was seen as acting outside of his remit which is to preach the Gospel and not act as a Home Office social worker.

He did seem to act as a lightening conductor for public opinion that has perhaps had an excess of the media providing unscrutinised interviews with Muslims who are allowed to avoid the premise of Islam that it validates violence with statements such as Islam does not permit the killing of innocent people without any reference to those whom it does not regard as innocent.

Is Munir Ali the 'Munir' who is a member of Hizb ut Tahrir I wonder! I wish to add that as a convert to Islam in the mid 90's at a time when political Islam was on the ascendency, I became married to a supporter of shariah. I found myself engulfed by it and wish to explain I was denied a civil marriage as I was told shariah nikkah marriage was all that was necessary as a muslim. I was totally controlled by my husband as is every other wife of a member of Hizb ut Tahrir. The reason for this is their adherence to shariah opinion that a husband can make his wife ask his permission before she goes out of the house, where she visits, with whom she mixes and whether or not she even studies and works. I was not even allowed to control my own fertility due to shariah opinion on the matter and now I am left after years of allowing my husband under the guise of shariah effectively ruin my career, fighting to retain custody of my small child. These are the practical effects of shariah upon women here in the uk thanks to groups like Hizb ut Tahrir who wish to establish an Islamic state in order to implement shariah and export it to the rest of the world. It would be interesting to know incidentally, the parties current position on the taking of concubines or 'sex slaves' incidentally. The party had banned it but is this just a pragmatic move until they attain power? Finally it costs muslim women anything from £200 upwards and if you were to go to the Leyton Shariah Council you can expect to be charged £250 for the honour of having men decide whether you can be divorced as opposed to a mere £100 for a husband wishing to use this service. Mind you he only has to sit at home and recite talaq 3 times even in the wifes absence [according to Hanafi shariah opinion] to get his divorce.Presumably he will have the good grace to tell his wife of the divorce when she gets home if she was ever allowed to venture out alone in the first place!

I am glad you have redressed the balance of this blog. Like the archbishop, I too have many Muslim friends. They don't find it a problem, and neither do I.

I note that all the statements here support Douglas Murray. Why do you not post the comments that support a different idea? The only dangerous thing that the archbishop has done is inadvertently uncovering so much anti-muslim feeling in this country. I am appalled at the response of our media.

"In sharia law the testimony of a woman is worth half that of a man."

I wonder where Douglas Murray has studied sharia law - that simply isnt true.In sharia in marriage the man and woman testimony carry equal weight and indeed in cases where disputes arise and the women's interests are predominant (for example in n the allocating of her dowry) her opinion is given precedence over the man and and is decisive.

To speak on a subject with such basic ignorance of it as Douglas Murray does, reeks of simple bigotry.

So I aks again where and with who did Douglas Murray study sharia?

Dear Mr. Murray, I watched Newsnight last night and was impressed by the way that you have the courage to make a stand against what I consider to be the hypocrisy and ignorance of Rowan Williams; and the in-equality of the treatment of women in the Sharia courts.

I have been studying the Qur'an on and off since the 11th September 2001 as I wanted to know what the Muslim people believe in. I have discovered something in this book which I find very disturbing and it also concerns another statement made by Rowan Williams which reveals once again his ignorance of the Qur'an and the motives of the Islamic people.

Rowan Williams has said that some of his closest friends are Muslim. If he had consulted the Qur'an, which he says he has a copy of at his bedside, he would have realised that it is not possible for him to have any Muslim friends. Why? If you visit the website: www.wrighthouse.com/religions/islam/quran/5-table.php you will see that the Quran says that those who believe(I take this to mean those who believe in the "teachings of the Qu'ran)are not to take the Jews or Christians as friends or protectors(which also makes me wonder why so many Muslims seek asylum in the UK-perhaps this can also be brought to the attention of the citizins of the UK who I believe are bieng lied to by unscrupulous people;but that is another matter)as the jews and Christians are friends and protectors to each other. It goes on to say that the Jews and Christians are an unjust people. This is all contained in the 51st verse.

My point is, Rowan Williams is either:
1. Misinforming us deliberately.
2. Is being misinformed deliberatly by others.
3. Is a nice man who is trying to please all the people all the time. In which case it would be better in my opinion for him to keep his mouth shut untill he knows exactly what he is talking about. This man is in a great position of trust and responsibility and what he says effects the lives of billions of people.

An acquaintance has pointed out that the translation of the Qur'an that I have quoted(by Abdulla Yusuf Ali) is only one mans' interpretation; so I have consulted three other translations of the Qur'an and they are all virtually the same.

I hope I have made my point clearly.

Yours, T. DeLuca.

I'm sorry but I really do think he should go.

His statements are outrageous, coming from a man of his position.

He's probably a nice man but his talk is dangerous and naive to say the least.

Spot on, Douglas, as were your comments on 'Newsnight'. As an Anglican layperson I find the Archbishop's stance on all matters Islamic breathtakingly embarrassing and, more seriously, a threat to the rule of law and the liberty it safeguards. Tomorrow morning I shall be teaching classes consisting mainly of Muslim girls at one of Civitas' supplementary schools. I am deeply angry that my Archbishop has tried to slam shut the door to the open society in their faces.

Dear
First I would like to say that I am from Muslim country, I have read Qura’n (the holy book of Islam), there is absolutely no respect for women, and there is no human right and equality –this is not interpretation of myself you can read it straight from Qura’n and you will understand it. To see Sharia Law in practice you just need to look at the Iran, Saudi Arabia, South of Iraq (e.g. city of Basra), Nigeria, Sudan, Somalia, etc. And plus you can read it youslf. People in Middle East are suffering under the darkness of Sharia Law and they are fleeing this law and seeking refuge in western countries in order to have civil law and the kind of law hat respect human right and put aside religion, but now they have to flee UK as well because of Sharia Law.

I think what Mr Williams said is very disastrous for hard earned freedom of this country and especially for women and specifically for Muslim girls. Mr Williams must be condemned and must resign immediately

"Does the Archbishop now believe that it is acceptable that ... girls born to Muslim families in the UK should be afforded half the rights of those enjoyed by every other girl in the land?"

No, he doesn't. As he made very clear when he said:

"nobody in their right mind, I think, would want to see in this country a kind of inhumanity that sometimes appears to be associated with the practice of the law in some Islamic states [with] the extreme punishments, the attitudes to women as well."

So obviously he doesn't support measures reducing the worth of women, any more than he supports cutting hands off and flogging.

Which suggests that either you didn't bother to read his ideas, or you're deliberately trying to stir up anti-religious feeling. Which is it?

Well, perhaps this is the wake up call that people have needed. Maybe people will take Islamism, the political programme of Tariq Ramadan, and his friends in the Muslim Brotherhood more seriously now. It has been very difficult to discuss these things openly in the mainstream press because they basically think you are bonkers if you try to point out that there is a highly vocal, highly organised, extremist section of the Muslim community, who, whilst not overtly violent, are intent on the Islamisation of the entirety of the UK - the much scorned Eurabia/Londonistan thesis. This has allowed these non-terrorist Islamist extremists to continue insinuating, scheming, infiltrating and propagandising. And here they've bagged the ABC!

Irfan Husain, who writes regularly for Dawn, calls these folk 'fantasists' rather than extremists, if they think they can restore the Caliphate and set up a global Islamic government. His first question: so who will be Caliph? How will Muslims decide? Well, I suppose OBL would get some kind of popular vote, but there are a whole host of others who would want the job.

Personally I was more worried about the news earlier in the week that the Department of Work and Pensions is to pay additional spouses of polygamous marriages welfare benefits. This decision was taken covertly after little consultation with other areas of the law. Here one area of the law (welfare rights) has been extended to a group which the civil law does not recognise, because it does not recognise polygamy.

If that's not the Islamisation of the UK I don't know what is. I am writing to my MP about this and encourage everyone else to do so, especially in the light of the ABC's comments. Time to draw a line in the sand here. This decision was taken without public debate, parliamentary debate or scruntiny by the law lords for its legal and constitutional implications. Somebody was asleep on the job! I am convinced DWP has acted beyond its powers and that a judicial review is required. British law does not recognise polygamy. End.

The proper recourse (if there is such need) should be for the Muslim joint husband to apply for Islamic charity to support such additional sharia wives.

I have a good guess what the sharia council would say though: Get a job! Any job! Hold down two jobs! You married these women; under sharia it is your Islamic duty to provide for them! Marriage is half the deen!

Exactly. So why is the monogamous British tax payer paying for them?

Good luck with the snake Ramadan. Pin the blighter down. 'Can you give a specific example?'