By R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. on 2.14.08 @ 12:08AM
The Archbishop of Canterbury plays Neville Chamberlain to Islamo-fascism.
WASHINGTON -- Islam has a new convert. Some will be surprised,
but I am not. The newest convert to the religion of the unshaven
face is Archbishop Rowan Williams. Dr. Williams has been the
spiritual leader of the Anglican Church in the UK. However, after
his February 7 interview on the BBC I think we can all agree that
he is not so much a spiritual leader as a spiritual
capitulator.
In his wonderfully wooly-headed interview, derived from a public
lecture delivered by him at the Royal Courts of Justice, Dr.
Williams called on his countrymen to arrive at "constructive
accommodation" with Islamic sharia law. According to his
calculations, the inclusion of sharia law into the British code of
law is "unavoidable." Thus if you are visiting London in the future
and you appear in a British court, do not be surprised if it is
presided over by a smiling mullah. Actually, it is not clear what
Dr. Williams knows about sharia law, and in his BBC interview he
admitted, "I'm no expert on this." Nonetheless, he is calling for
the institutionalization of Islam into at least some areas of his
country's legal code. Doubtless soon the forward-looking archbishop
will be seen lugging a prayer rug over to his local mosque at the
appointed hours -- his wife, veiled and obedient, in tow. Sharia
law can be pretty demanding.
In some countries where this legal code -- first formulated
sometime in the seventh century -- is followed, it enjoins, among
other atrocities, the stoning of adulterers, the amputation of body
parts, and a kind of female subjugation unimaginable to even the
most ardent Western male chauvinist pig. By the way, sharia law
even takes into consideration pigs, as well as mortgages, couture,
and the care of household pets, which are discouraged. As for pigs,
they are considered "unclean." In most countries where sharia law
rules, a ham on rye is malum prohibitum -- pardon my
Latin. As I say, sharia law can be pretty demanding.
This brings me to a matter that Islam's most recent celebrity
convert seems not to understand. Sharia law is socially,
politically, and legally, all-embracing. It is not simply a
religious faith, as various forms of Christianity are. It is a
polity. As Peter G. Riddell, a theologian at the Kairos
Journal, wrote in response to Dr. Williams here,
sharia law "is a system that insists on society's compliance in
every sector of human activity: legal, religious, economic,
political, and social. Although Muslims may disagree on how to
implement Islam as the total package, they do not disagree that
Islam is much more than just a private expression of religious
belief." So Dr. Williams, you have had your last ham sandwich and
forget the pigs' knuckles. They are completely off the menu.
At the outset of this column I mentioned that I am not surprised
by the spiritual capitulation of the leader of the Anglican Church.
Since the 1930s many in the church's leadership have been classic
appeasers. They appeased the fascists. Why would we not expect them
to appease religious fascists? It is true that as World War II
recedes into the mists of time, almost all big-hearted progressives
or liberals (or whatever self-congratulatory term they apply to
themselves) denounce Nazism and fascism with the utmost ardor. Yet
when these odious movements were on the rise many among the British
elite cautioned prudence in dealing with them; and some actually
admired them including members of the royal family and, of course,
clerics in the Anglican Church.
The recent inclination of people like Dr. Williams to appease
anti-democratic concoctions such as sharia law might move the real
defenders of democracy among us to contemplate what causes this
appeasement. It is not tolerance. Dr. Williams would not tolerate
most forms of bigotry, yet he tolerates the religious bigotry and
authoritarianism of sharia. Why? It is because he is, as were his
antecedents who appeased Hitler, a coward. He is afraid of rousing
himself from the comforts of his London manse to oppose even those
who hate him. He calculates that someone else will do the job or
that the threat will subside. Yet there is, I suspect, another more
subtle cause for his appeasement.
The bien pensant of Dr. Williams's variety have lived
in a self-contained society for the morally superior for several
generations. They do not like their fellow countrymen who are not a
part of that society. In a word, they do not like conservatives and
others who, like conservatives, resist threats to Britain. We have
the same sort of appeasers here. In both countries these
self-regarding poseurs would rather proclaim tolerance toward those
who hate our countries than work with the rest of us to defend our
way of life. Have a lovely time at the mosque, archbishop.
topics:
Religion, Islam, Law, Fascism