The Archbishop's Road to Dhimmitude!
21 Feb, 2008
Geoffrey Chaucer had a monk, a friar, a nun’s priest, a prioress,
a second nun and a canon’s yeoman but he had no archbishop. Why?
Were they that unpopular? Did he miss something? The first
archbishop of Canterbury was Saint Augustine. One of Gus’ successors
was beheaded by an angry mob in 1381. Oh, what tales an archbishop
could have told…especially an Archbishop of Canterbury! Perhaps
Chaucer found them too boring, too conventional, too God-ridden.
Maybe he had a presentiment of the future and didn’t like what he
saw. He would not have liked the current Archbishop of Canterbury.
Chaucer lived in the 14th Century. They were closer to God in those
days. The Devil was everywhere. Life was short. If it weren’t the
Black Death it would be something else. There was pestilence and
vermin and codpieces. It was difficult to tell which was the most
frightening. There were wars that lasted a hundred years. Perhaps in
a moment of clarity Chaucer saw past Bolingbroke and Henry VIII and
Churchill—saw Rowan Williams, the current Archbishop of Canterbury,
the 104th, an Apostate, a betrayer of his religion, his country, of
everything Chaucer stood for, a man willing to introduce the Islamic
fox into the Christian henhouse, mix a little Sharia Law with Coke.
There weren’t many Musselmen or Mohametans residing in Merry Olde
England when Chaucer hit the road to Canterbury in 13-something. If
there had been and he had not held his tongue he would have been the
Salman Rushdie of the 14th Century. Chaucer had a tendency toward
the irreverent. If the current Archbishop of Canterbury had been
traveling with Chaucer The Tales might have had a different
ending—not that they had an ending, but the atmosphere would have
been different: gloomy, morose, a searching for skulls in a
graveyard. But there was no Rowan Williams, instead there were nuns
and monks and parsons. Would any of them have suggested applying
French Law to parts of England? Not likely. What did they know about
French Law…or English Law…or Sharia? Little enough. But Rowan
Williams knows Sharia Law—or at least pretends to. “Be at ease,” he
would have told his fellow travelers, like the Black Death, Sharia
Law “is unavoidable,” and “Allahu akbar,” it will help maintain
social order.
That is what Hitler said the Nuremberg Laws would do. It is what
Pitchfork Ben Tillman promised with his Black Codes. Is the
Archbishop prescient or what? He told BBC that “certain provisions
of Sharia are already recognized in our society and under our law,
so it’s not as if we are bringing in an alien…system.” That is what
Herr Ribbentrop told Neville Chamberlain! Lord Haw Haw agreed. There
wasn’t any significant difference between Nazi Germany and Tudor
England, between Nazi Germany and the Danegeld—a few more beheadings
perhaps.
“I think we need to look at this with a clearer eye and not imagine
either we know exactly what we mean by Sharia and not just associate
it with what we read about Saudi Arabia or whatever,” said Williams.
Yes, a clearer eye, but the ‘whatever’ is puzzling.
The Muttawa, the Saudi religious police, the Commission for the
Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, arrested a woman in a
Starbucks last week for sitting in a section reserved for families.
She was with a male colleague. They were not members of the same
family and they had no chaperon. That is not allowed. She was taken
to Riyadh prison, strip-searched and forced to sign a confession.
What else could she do? They have ways to make people confess. It
must have been what the Archbishop meant by ‘whatever.’
In anticipation of Valentine’s Day, the Muttawa has banned red
roses, supposedly a symbol of love. A few years ago it was the
Barbie doll. It isn’t easy promoting virtue or preventing vice.
There is no telling what naughty ideas a Barbie doll could put in
the heads of foolish young girls. Whatever.
In Iran, sisters Zohreh and Azar Kabiri-niat were sentenced to a
flogging for having illicit relations with men. It appears to have
been double jeopardy for they were no sooner flogged than they were
charged with committing adultery while being married. They were
found guilty and sentenced to death by stoning. Their partners,
their cohorts, will suffer shame and humiliation…whatever.
In Australia, Rabiah Hutchinson, a one-time hippie who converted to
Islam in 1973 continues to make noise. In her most recent
pronouncement she said the victims of the Bali bombings got what
they deserved because they were pot-smoking, cocaine-snorting
pedophiles. A close friend of Rabiah, also a convert to Islam,
supports Osama bin Laden because he is following the “correct
version of Islam.” Maybe that is what confuses the Archbishop—too
many versions. He needs to look at this with a clearer eye—or maybe
he can open his eyes from time to time. Twenty-twenty vision is
better than hindsight.
Many people have converted to Christianity, including some Muslims,
and none of them, as far as is known, has said Eric Rudolph's
version of Christianity was the correct one.
It is no better in Iraq. According to a recent CNN report, 133 women
were killed last year in Basra, Iraq’s second largest city, for
violating “Islamic teachings.” Some were killed for not wearing a
headscarf, some for wearing makeup. Abductions, rapes and ‘honor
killings’ are on the rise in Basra. This is the giant, economy size
‘whatever.’ But Williams prefers to look at the ‘big’ picture, not
at the thousands of ‘little’ pictures playing out every day across
Islam.
“Nobody in their right mind,” he says, “would want to see in this
country the kind of inhumanity that’s been sometimes associated with
the practice of the law in some Islamic states, the extreme
punishments, the attitude to woman as well,” but where “there’s one
law for everybody and that’s all there is to be said, and anything
else that commands your loyalty or allegiance (Like being a member
of the Nazi Party?) is completely irrelevant in the processes of the
courts—I think that’s a bit of a danger.”
Is it any wonder that Jefferson didn’t trust the Church of England?
Chaucer never met Rowan Williams but he certainly met someone who
could have served as his proxy. Remember the canon and his yeoman?
The canon didn’t do much talking but the yeoman did. He said his
master was an alchemist, a scientist: he could turn base metals into
silver and gold. Williams, too, is an alchemist—he is trying to
transform a base metal, Islam, into the silver and gold of
Christianity. This makes him a worse fool than the canon—given the
state of metallurgy in the 14th Century and the state of Religion in
the 21st. The yeoman said his master could pave the road upon which
they were traveling with silver and gold. When it comes to paving
stones, the only thing Williams has is the Qur’an and taqiyya and
the road is to dhimmitude.
| If you like this essay: |
Stumble it
 |
digg it |
Denis Schulz was prospective convert to Islam (read his testimony: How I Almost Became a Muslim?) before changing his mind after the 9/11. He actively writes on the threats of Islam and terrorism.
Name: agnostic
Date: Thursday February 21, 2008
Time: 05:17:38 -0700
Comment
{But Rowan Williams knows Sharia Law—or at least pretends to.}.......No Denis, the archdhimmi -it is not clear knows about Shariah law. In his BBC interview, he admitted: "I'm no expert on this." The spiritual capitulator confessed a couple of years back that " we must all get down on our knees and apologise to muslims..." Ever since then he is known as an appeaser and tolerates the religious bigotry and authoritarianism of Sharia. Why? He is a self-regarding poseur who would rather proclaim tolerance toward those who hate his country than work with those to defend christianity and civilisation. Because he is a COWARD - easier to cop out. And where did he get his knowledge of Sharia? Why , from that taqiyyah-filled Islamofascist Tariq Ramadan, the scum who lectures in St Anthony's College, Oxford, that college famous for anti-semitism while being the running dogs for muslims (Churchill received the worst of criticisms for 6 years from those moonbats) offered him a fellowship, which he now occupies. And pray, who is this nasty piece of shit? Paul Berman's portrait of the Islamofascist in the June 4 New Republic untangles the spaghetti-strands that tie Professor Ramadan to the terrorist ambience. RAMADAN IS THE GRANDSON OF THE FOUNDER OF MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD, HASSAN AL-BANNA, THE IDEOLOGICAL INSPIRER OF RADICAL ISLAM. Ramadan's critics accuse him of offering a reasoned dialogue to Westerners while promoting terrorism among Arabs. Sp did Yasser Arafat. So do all the muslim imams in the US, UK, and Europe, and wherever their filthy kind have a foothold. . His efforts to "Europeanize" Islam do not extend to such customs as wife-beating, which he recommends so long as it does not produce wounds. In a televised debate with then Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, (now President) Ramadan refused to condemn the stoning of women for adultery as prescribed by Islamic law, offering only to institute a temporary moratorium on the practice. Berman's 30,000-word essay, targets not only Ramadan, but the European and American journalists who admire him, for example Timothy Ash in The Guardian. What Berman dubs "the intellectual establishment" has decided, "Better the 7th century than Nicolas Sarkozy," and attacks Muslim dissidents such as former Dutch Member of Parliament Hirsan Ali while cozying up to presentable Islamists like Ramadan. Tariq Ramadan's great-uncle, the cleric Sheikh Gamal al-. Banna's public endorsement of the World Trade Center attacks and "extremely courageous" action of the September 11, 2001, hijackers, which was "dreadful and splendid", in opposition to the "barbaric capitalism" of the United States. - Banna also borrowed the idea of heroic death as a political art form." See the CONNECTION between these FILTH AND FASCISM? Daniel Pipes has a couple of articles on this muslim potential mass murderer. Brit natives would do well to really ponder the following: "The moment you give up your principles and your values, the moment you laugh at those principles and those values, you are dead, your culture is dead, your civilization is dead. Period." Tashbih Sayyed 1941-2007.
Name: Answering-Falsehood
Date: Thursday February 21, 2008
Time: 06:59:55 -0700
Comment
What makes Muslims believe that the Quran is not written by Prophet Muhammad? Does the Quran claim that it is from God? Could the Prophet have copied some portions of the Bible? Are there scientific facts in the Quran? Muslims believe that Prophet Muhammad is not the author of the Quran. God is its Author. The following points bear the fact: 1. First of all, the Quran itself, at a number of places and in different ways, says that it is a Revelation from God (Quran 56:77-80; 53:4; 20:4; 36:5; 45:2; 32:2; 26:192-4; 16:102; 14:1; etc.). One of the claims runs thus: "This is indeed a Quran most honourable, a Book well-guarded...a Revelation from the Lord of the Worlds." (Quran 56:77-80) 2. The Prophet was unlettered. However, even if he was educated and had written the Quran, how could he be bold enough to make this statement: "Do they not consider (ponder over) the Quran (with care)? Had it been from other than God, they would surely have found therein discrepancies". (4:82) Abdullah Yusuf Ali, commenting on this verse (verse 4:82) in his English translation of the Quran, says: "From a mere human point of view, we should have expected much discrepancy, because (1) Prophet Muhammad who promulgated it was not a learned man or philosopher, (2) it was promulgated at various times and in various circumstances, and (3) it is addressed to all grades of mankind. Yet, when properly understood, its various pieces fit together better than a jigsaw puzzle even when arranged without any regard to chronological order. There was just the One Inspirer and one inspired." 3. If the Prophet had written the Quran - a Book par excellence - surely he would have claimed credit for it, but he did not. He could not claim what was not his. Indeed God says: "This Quran is not such as can be produced by anyone other than God." (10:37) 4. The Quran took 23 years to complete. Had the verses of the Quran (which contains more than 6,000 verses) been written by the Prophet, he would have needed a number of drafts and the work would have needed editing, updating, etc. But this did not happen, yet the information is consistent throughout the Quran. The verses were taken down as dictated by the Prophet only once and no redrafting, editing or updating took place after that. 5. At a number of stages during the 23-year period, challenges to reproduce, even a chapter of the Quran, were made. If the Prophet had written the Quran, he would not have made the challenges, for fear that the learned Arabs and eminent poets of his time would have taken up his challenges and shamed him. One of the challenges goes thus: "And if you are in doubt as to what We have revealed (from time to time) to Our servant (Muhammad), then produce a chapter like thereunto..." (2:23) 6. The Quran says that the Prophet was not learned (62:2; 7:157-158). So, if the Prophet was educated in some institution but mentioned in the Quran that he wasn't, he would have been accused of being a liar and his mission would have fallen through. 7. Even if the Prophet was learned, how could he have written such an inimitable Book of Information and Wisdom without resorting to consultation with prominent scholars and the best books from the best libraries in the world?! If he did this, it would surely have been known, since every move he made was known to people. The Prophet was a historical figure, not a mythological figure. 8. The Prophet was the busiest and most active person in history. So, how could he have found the time to write (even if he were educated) such a comprehensive and extensive Book of Guidance which would have needed years of seclusion and concentration to complete? 9. In the Quran, in Chapter 111, it is mentioned that Abu Lahab, one of the Prophet's uncles who was always against Islam, would never accept Islam. This Revelation came some ten years before the death of Abu Lahab. How could the Prophet have dared to write this chapter because all he (Abu Lahab) needed to do to prove that the Quran was not the Words of God, was to accept Islam dishonestly? 10. The Prophet was mentioned by name in the Quran only five times whereas Jesus Christ's name was (honourably) mentioned 25 times. Could the Prophet go to such an extent of honouring someone more than himself if he had written the Quran? 11. There is a chapter in the Quran entitled and dedicated to Mary, a Jew and the mother of Jesus Christ, while there is no chapter called, or dedicated to, the Prophet's own mother, Aminah, or daughter, Fatimah, nor were their names mentioned in the Quran. Could this have happened if the Prophet was the author of the Quran? 12. Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ, is glorified in the Quran as a "woman of all nations". Why would the Prophet glorify a Jewish woman he had never seen and one from another race, saying that she was chosen (by God) above all women unless the formulation of the verses had nothing to do with the Prophet's own authorship but that he only repeated what was inspired to him by God? 13. In the Quran, God is called "Allah" (in Arabic). He is also referred to by His Attributes, like the Cherisher, the Merciful, the Almighty. There are 99 such Attributes but none of these is "Abba" (Father) by which the Arab Christians of the Prophet's time (and even today) refer to God. If the Prophet was the writer of the Quran, he would surely have used "Abba" as one of the names for God because of its familiarity and also because it was easier to say "Abba" than many of the Attributes. 14. Although the Quran's objective is basically religious, it does touch on certain principles and laws governing the universe. A French scientist, Maurice Bucaille, in his book, "The Bible, the Quran and Science", says: "What initially strikes the reader confronted for the first time with a text of this kind (the Quran) is the sheer abundance of subjects discussed: the Creation, astronomy, the explanation of certain matters concerning the earth, and the animal and vegetable kingdoms, human reproduction ...I could not find a single error in the Quran. I had to stop and ask myself: if a man was the author of the Quran, how could he have written facts in the 7th Century AD that today are shown to be in keeping with modern scientific knowledge?'' 15. The Quran mentions a number of scientific facts which were unknown to the world then: http://youtube.com/watch?v=baOT0iMP3v0 http://youtube.com/watch?v=NpGs2SiBPCA http://youtube.com/watch?v=R9VKKOXjYB4 All these scientific facts were discovered only in the last couple of centuries whereas the Quran mentions them 14 centuries ago. How could the Prophet, even if he were educated, have known these fact centuries ahead of recent times? 16. Learned Arabs and other experts in the Arabic language acknowledge that the style, diction and rendering in the Quran far excels those in the Hadith. Those in the Quran are inimitable, proving that the Quran is authored by God. "Quran is a miracle of purity, of style, of wisdom and of truth." - Rev. R. Bosworth-Smith "Whenever I hear the Quran chanted, it is as though I am listening to music, underneath the flowing melody, there is sounding all the time the instant beat of a drum, it is like the beating of my heart." - A. J. Arberry "That inimitable symphony, the very sound of which move men to tears and ecstacy." - Marmaduke Picktall 17. Umar, later to become Caliph, had wanted to kill the Prophet because of his (Islamic) teachings. One day, Umar heard his sister reading something - the sound, diction and meaning of which made him halt to listen. His sister, who had secretly converted to Islam, was reading (part of) the Quran. Umar realised that the Words he was listening to could not be the words of man. He submitted to Islam soon after. 18. The Quran says: "If the whole of mankind and jinns (spirits) were to come together to produce the like of this Quran, they could not produce the like thereof even if backed up by each other with help and support." (17:88) This is a bold statement indeed. If the Prophet had written the Quran, would he as a human being, dare make such an explosive statement? Would this statement go unchallenged by the learned Arabs of his time? 19. Prophet Muhammad, being an unlettered person, could not have written the Quran, a Book full of wisdom and one dealing with varied subject matters. The Quran categorically states: "This Quran is not such as can be produced by anyone other than God. (It is a Book) from the Lord of the Worlds." (10:37) 20. Many of God's Prophets in the past had performed miracles either to prove that they were sent by God or to help people to achieve certain goals. However, as these miracles were for certain people of the time of the respective Prophets, they are neither tangible nor available today as a living proof. But the Quran is. It is a miracle by itself. When people asked Prophet Muhammad what miracle he had performed, the Prophet pointed to the Quran. Muslims regard the Quran as a living miracle because, among other reasons, it: *Strongly claims to be a Revelation from God, *Has no clear-cut contradiction or inconsistencies, *Is a Book par excellence in the provision of complete guidance for this life and the Hereafter, *Is available in the language (Arabic) as revealed to the Prophet, *Is inimitable in diction, sound and rendering, *Is accurate in its presentation of facts, *Has remained pure (without interpolation), *Has influenced the lives of people, and *Is responsible for the speedy spread of Islam, even now. With regard to the Quran being a miracle from the point of view of its influence on people, Maulana Muhammad Ali in his book, "The Religion of Islam", says: "The Quran is a miracle because it brought about the greatest transformation that the world has ever witnessed - a transformation of the individual, of the family, of the society, of the nation, of the country, an awakening material as well as moral, intellectual and spiritual. It produced an effect, a hundred thousand times greater than that of any other miracle recorded of any Prophet; hence, its claim to be the greatest of all miracles is uncontestable and uncontested." Researches on the Quran have been made throughout these 14 centuries. More particularly, in recent years, in the wake of religious enquiries, Quranic scholars, scientists and mathematicians have each, in their own way and knowledge, discovered that the factual contents of the Quran as well as the arrangement of its Words and text point to the fact that the Quran is indeed the living miracle of Islam. Source: http://myafrica.wordpress.com/2006/10/30/what-makes-muslims-believe-that-the-quran-is-not-written-by-prophet-muhammad/
Name: Allat
Date: Thursday February 21, 2008
Time: 07:11:10 -0700
Comment
Actually, they clergy are all the same - woven out of the same cloth: to get control of...to keep control of We, The People. If nothing else, they get free housing, and other perks, as well as getting the vibes of energy from their captive audience...........As to vibes, I want to ask you all, something. Why do you think show people - esp. those on stage shows, stay in the entertainment? The rule in show business is to go on stage no matter how sick yous are. Once the show is on, they start to feel better! I'm convinced it's the energy waves coming from the audience.
Name: leigh
Date: Saturday February 23, 2008
Time: 01:10:08 -0700
Comment
To Answering falsehood: Allah is incapable of making fulfilled prophecies as well as forgetting what prior revelations said-examples of the obvious refutations of the (false) Quran.
Name: Allat
Date: Tuesday February 26, 2008
Time: 09:03:19 -0700
Comment
"Is it any wonder that Jefferson didn’t trust the Church of England?_______________Well,I have to laugh. Whenever a white man comes up with the bit of Jefferson as a paragon! Oh, you mean, that Jefferson who owned slaves? That one?
Name: Allat
Date: Wednesday March 19, 2008
Time: 08:57:00 -0700
Comment
Somebody stuck a "Ban Islam Petition" to this article. Now, THAT is so foolish, and the author obviously, doesn't have the least notion of human psychology....1- It's too late to stop islam, it's now "self-starting" ---2 - The minute someone tells another NOT to do something, they will do it..either for curiosity or for defiance............What MUST be done, is for non-moslems to STOP bowing to the agenda, and give all aid to those trying to leave the religion. In part to help, is to conduct a sort of "Under-Ground Railroad" for the slves of islam, sort of like the kind the Abolitionists did in Pre-U.S. Civil War days.