Category Archives: shariah

The wisdom of Rowan Williams

The man who held the office of archbishop of Canterbury for a decade until 2012 looked, writes Dalrymple,

more like a druid than an Anglican, and one would not have been surprised to see him in ecstasy at Stonehenge during the summer solstice, dressed in a white robe.

Dalrymple notes that Williams’s best-known pronouncement,

in so far as head or tail could be made of anything he said (his incomprehensibility gave him a reputation for intellect among the gullible) was the inevitability of the institution of sharia in Great Britain.

At the druid induction

Explaining why Muslims — but not druids — should have their own laws in Britain

The inevitability of it all

In ecstasy at Stonehenge

Common sense on Islamic terrorism

Screen Shot 2015-07-31 at 10.16.31

Islamic horror

Dalrymple Q&A

What do you say to those who pretend that Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with Islam?

Such a view violates common sense.

Should internet providers and universities be less complaisant towards Islamic extremists?

Yes.

Screen Shot 2015-07-31 at 10.18.50

Conspiracy theories

Should the conspiracy theories Islamists peddle be countered and mocked?

Vigorously.

Is Islamic terrorism caused by poverty?

No.

Is there any other reason for complaint that justifies Islamic terrorism?

No.

Certain immigrant groups do not flourish in the UK.

Screen Shot 2015-07-31 at 10.22.26

Symbol of success

This reflects more on their group characteristics than upon the host country.

Give an example.

The Sikhs, who came to Britain from the Punjab with nothing, are now the second-wealthiest group by household, as classified by religious affiliation; notwithstanding individual successes, Muslims who came from the Punjab at the same time remain relatively poor.

Are values such as democracy, freedom, sexual equality and non-discrimination compatible with Islam?

They do not appear at first sight to be so, though no doubt some Muslim reformists would like to make them so; and Bangladesh, from which a large group of immigrants to Britain have come, is one of the few countries to have witnessed an explicitly anti-democratic mass demonstration. In most Muslim countries, it remains dangerous to be explicitly atheist. Criticism of Mohammed, even if reasoned and scholarly, would be even more dangerous.

Screen Shot 2015-07-31 at 10.27.16

Banner of failure

Is it a problem that many immigrants to the UK do not feel British?

This misses the point. It’s not how immigrants feel that matters, but how they behave. No one has any idea how British the Polish, Brazilian, Chinese, Vietnamese, and other immigrants (of whom there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions in total) feel, but nobody cares, because none of them is intent upon the destruction of British institutions. This is not true of some unknown and probably unknowable—but possibly not negligible—proportion of Muslims, no matter which part of the Islamic world they come from.

Screen Shot 2015-07-31 at 10.28.43

The great enabler

Does diversity make England a better place?

Success in Britain isn’t caused by diversity, but becomes possible for diverse people because of the rule of law—British law, not shariah, Jewish, canon, or any other law. And I doubt that the general population feels that the Kosovars, say, or the Romanian gypsies have, as a group (irrespective of any individuals among them), made Britain a better place.

The sad evasiveness of Sadakat Kadri

Screen Shot 2013-03-19 at 10.40.10Dalrymple writes that Sadakat Kadri, in his Heaven and Earth, exhibits

cowardly abdication of intellectual responsibility and of honesty,

and eel-like slipperiness.

One could expend several pages on teasing out the evasions, half-lies and non-sequiturs. The baleful, honesty-destroying influence of the late Edward Said is evident.

Kadri seeks

to justify a paranoid self-pity among Muslims.

For instance, he says how appalled he is by the 2005 Jyllands-Posten Mohammed cartoons,

but not by the criminal and mendacious mullahs who, in their treacherous efforts to stir up trouble against the country that had welcomed them and provided them with a very decent living, added to the cartoons in question some that were never published; nor by efforts to kill the cartoonists; nor by the primitive, stupid and vicious behaviour of inflamed crowds that ended in the deaths of quite a number of people.

He is

a lawyer specializing in human rights; one can only suppose that he leads a double life. Whether he does or not, his book is a dishonest, ill-written, and disgraceful performance, which is no doubt why it drew such praise.