Lambeth Palace, for the Archbishop, replied to a lengthy contact form email I sent with comments about a newspaper article (Daily Mail 24 February 2018) in which the Archbishop of Canterbury reportedly said that Sharia is incompatible with British laws. My main point was to show how Sharia has already penetrated into Western thinking and was undermining faith in our leaders/society and that this was due to concerted actions by Islamic entities. The reply was for me unsatisfactory and this was my response.
Your office have disputed that you used the term “incompatible with British Laws” when talking about Sharia and that that is the interpretation of your comments that the newspapers have come up with. If that is the case please accept my apologies, but I have neither seen any retraction asked nor given, and neither do I always have access first hand to events, so I have to trust, however shaky at times, what the news outlets report and use if I can, other ways of verifying for myself what has been presented.
Your office have said that your remarks are not a rejection of the compatibility of Sharia or a disrespect of it and that as we already have a society based on Christian culture, the incorporation of another legal system would be confusing and not necessary. This statement is what I find concerning. Muslims would not find the introduction of Sharia at all confusing, as (in theory) they live their daily lives in accordance with its mandates as they are generally not allowed to interpret sharia etc. for themselves. Any confusion would come from the non-Muslim population who do not want it imposed on them -period!
Sharia is incompatible with our laws. This comes not from me, or from all the adherents to the system we have in this country and other secular countries, but from Sharia itself. There are numerous instances in the Koran, the hadith, in the Reliance of the Traveller (the manual of Islamic Law), and other modern texts where it is declared that Sharia is not compatible with any man-made laws and seeks to rid the world of them. On a basic level, Sharia rejects all man-made laws. In however flowery language it’s phrased in, it’s purpose (or one of them) is to rid the world of democracy. Ironically if you do not accept this then you are disrespecting Sharia.
Your office informs me that your understanding of Islamic Law is informed by an approach to Sharia that says that any legal system that preserves life, religion, the soul/intellect, property and family is Sharia-compliant, but on the above reasoning our laws and system are definitely incompatible with Sharia, and a modest study of Sharia would confirm this. British law is able to properly accommodate all faiths but one.
At your inauguration on 5 July 2013, you raised the matter of “gay people executed in Iran for being gay”, God’s children made in his image being executed in accordance with his law, Sharia, for being the way that he made them. Your office put it to me that the values such as “preserves life,….. etc” are common to the Abrahamic faiths, does Christianity do this or sanction it? Does Judaism? Do they also have in their holy texts sanctions such as stoning to death of adulterers especially women, crucifixion, slavery, (for sex in the case of women), mass murder, crippling amputations and so on? Or do you just view this in terms of cultural relativism, a bit unfortunate, we wouldn’t do it but it’s up to them and none of our business?
Islam is palpably not an Abrahamic religion, as claimed but is a totalitarian political-legal system that merely purports to have a religious basis. For me, the two Abrahamic religions, and all others should view Islam as the work of Satan, if you believe in that sort of thing.
Your office mentions the links, worldwide, through your interfaith team with other faiths ie interfaith dialogue, in maintaining “positive and helpful dialogue”. Whilst probably valid with other religions, what does this mean with regard to Islam? The world is awash with the blood of the victims of Islamic terror, carried out in accordance with the Koran, Sharia and the hadiths, not as an aberration or corruption of them, and also in accordance with day to day “normal” application of Sharia Law.
Christians and others are being slaughtered and persecuted daily in Muslim majority countries, where are the positives, where is the help?
I do not know what protocol you are using for your interfaith dialogue, but it is certain that somewhere it will contain a hook back to Sharia Law. The Catholic Church I believe uses as a basis, the following “Interfaith Dialogue: A Guide for Muslims 2007” produced by the International Institute of Islamic Thought, in which the following “rules” are mentioned:
“to remain committed to being friends when the world would separate us from one another” meaning that the dialogue partners are more important than anyone else and anything in the way of evidence or reason that should lead you to question Islam is inadmissible, even if it arises from within your own flock.
“supported by guarantees of mutual trust” meaning that anything said must be taken at face value regardless of the existence of Islamic deception, taqiyya or kitman etc., virtues in Sharia.
Only discussions of Islam that Muslim partners affirm “as accurate” are allowed, meaning no criticism of Islam is allowed from anyone at all.
Interfaith dialogue with Muslims, under the above conditions, is a total waste of time and produces nothing of value. What it does produce on the contrary is adherence by the non-Muslim “partners”, and their faiths, to the Sharia concept of slander ie no criticism whatsoever of Islam is allowed by anyone, another example of the infiltration of Western culture by Sharia, and it’s dislocation of faith by stealth.
I will probably not communicate further as it is unlikely to be productive, it is up to you and your conscience to ponder, or not, the nature of Islam and what it means for the future of your religion, it’s followers and the society that you say is based on Christian values.