Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

Rowan Williams is a totally deluded and deceived man. He obviously has no idea what sharia law is all about and what this dangerous introduction would lead to.

If anyone comes to live in Britain, they abide by the British law. Whenever I have visited or lived abroad, I have abided by the law of that land, and that included living in the Middle East for 2 short spells of time. The ex-Australian prime minister rightly said that if anyone did not like the Australian law, then they were at liberty to make their home elsewhere.

Rowan Williams is a very confused humanist. Christian? I have no idea. I think there will be many angry, ruffled Anglican feathers in this country. Let alone some even more confused British people who do not go to any church getting comments like that from the National Church leader.

I hasten to add, I am not anti foreigners living in Britain. Some of my best friends are not British.

Suzy

Saints, this is where weeping and travailing in prayer comes in. Honestly, it's not an option.

This whole world needs a revival the likes of which have never been seen before and it's only going to come if God's people come out of their complacency and rise up to their priestly calling and [i]pray![/i] This should already be on our hearts to do this, we shouldn't have to be coaxed or urged.

I heard an excellent [url=http://listen.family.org/daily/A000000880.cfm]speech[/url] given by Dr. Pactrick Sookhdeo to staff at Focus on the Family on global Islam, he likens the Christians in Iraq, Pakistan, and Afgahanistan to canaries in the mines that are dying to warn others of danger. Dr. Sookhdeo is from Great Britian and a convert from Islam,in this article he states that Sharia law is already being practiced in limited situations such as home mortgages and pensions.

This article is a bit long in this format, but it's worth the read:

ENGLAND:
The day is coming when British Muslims form a state within a state
By Alasdair Palmer
The Telegraph Group February 19, 2006
For the past two weeks, Patrick Sookhdeo has been canvassing the opinions of Muslim clerics in Britain on the row over the cartoons featuring images of Mohammed that were first published in Denmark and then reprinted in several other European countries."
They think they have won the debate," he says with a sigh. "They believe that the British Government has capitulated to them, because it feared the consequences if it did not.
"The cartoons, you see, have not been published in this country, and the Government has been very critical of those countries in which they were published. To many of the Islamic clerics, that's a clear victory.
"It's confirmation of what they believe to be a familiar pattern: if spokesmen for British Muslims threaten what they call 'adverse consequences' - violence to the rest of us - then the British Government will cave in. I think it is a very dangerous precedent."
Dr Sookhdeo adds that he believes that "in a decade, you will see parts of English cities which are controlled by Muslim clerics and which follow, not the common law, but aspects of Muslim sharia law.
"It is already starting to happen - and unless the Government changes the way it treats the so-called leaders of the Islamic community, it will continue.
"For someone with such strong and uncompromising views, Dr Sookhdeo is a surprisingly gentle and easy-going man. He speaks with authority on Islam, as it was his first faith: he was brought up as a Muslim in Guyana, the only English colony in South America, and attended a madrassa there.
"But Islamic instruction was very different in the 1950s, when I was at school," he says. "There was no talk of suicide bombing or indeed of violence of any kind. Islam was very peaceful."
Dr Sookhdeo's family emigrated to England when he was 10. In his early twenties, when he was at university, he converted to Christianity. "I had simply seen it as the white man's religion, the religion of the colonialists and the oppressors - in a very similar way, in fact, to the way that many Muslims see Christianity today."
Leaving Islam was not easy. According to the literal interpretation of the Koran, the punishment for apostasy is death - and it actually is punished by death in some Middle Eastern states. "It wasn't quite like that here," he says, "although it was traumatic in some ways."
Dr Sookhdeo continued to study Islam, doing a PhD at London University on the religion. He is currently director of the Institute for the Study of Islam and Christianity. He also advises the Army on security issues related to Islam.
Several years ago, Dr Sookhdeo insisted that the next wave of radical Islam in Britain would involve suicide bombings in this country. His prediction was depressingly confirmed on 7/7 last year.
So his claim that, in the next decade, the Muslim community in Britain will not be integrated into mainstream British society, but will isolate itself to a much greater extent, carries weight behind it. Dr Sookhdeo has proved his prescience.
"The Government, and Tony Blair, the Prime Minister, are fundamentally deluded about the nature of Islam," he insists. "Tony Blair unintentionally revealed his ignorance when he said, in an effort to conciliate Muslims, that he had 'read through the Koran twice' and that he kept it by his bedside."
He thought he was saying something which showed how seriously he took Islam. But most Muslims thought it was a joke, if not an insult. Because, of course, every Muslim knows that you cannot read the Koran through from cover to cover and understand it.
The chapters are not written to be read in that way. Indeed, after the first chapter, the chapters of the Koran are ordered according to their length, not according to their content or chronology: the longest chapters are first, the shorter ones are at the end."
You need to know which passage was revealed at what period and in what time in order to be able to understand it - you cannot simply read it from beginning to end and expect to learn anything at all.
"That is one reason why it takes so long to be able to read and understand the Koran: the meaning of any part of it depends on a knowledge of its context - a context that is not in the Koran itself."
The Prime Minister's ignorance of Islam, Dr Sookhdeo contends, is of a piece with his unsuccessful attempts to conciliate it. And it does indeed seem as if the Government's policy towards radical Islam is based on the hope that if it makes concessions to its leaders, they will reciprocate and relations between fundamentalist Muslims and Tony Blair's Government will then turn into something resembling an ecumenical prayer meeting.
Dr Sookhdeo nods in vigorous agreement with that. "Yes - and it is a very big mistake. Look at what happened in the 1990s. The security services knew about Abu Hamza and the preachers like him. They knew that London was becoming the centre for Islamic terrorists. The police knew. The Government knew. Yet nothing was done.
"The whole approach towards Muslim militants was based on appeasement. 7/7 proved that that approach does not work - yet it is still being followed. For example, there is a book, The Noble Koran: a New Rendering of its Meaning in English, which is openly available in Muslim bookshops.
"It calls for the killing of Jews and Christians, and it sets out a strategy for killing the infidels and for warfare against them. The Government has done nothing whatever to interfere with the sale of that book.
"Why not? Government ministers have promised to punish religious hatred, to criminalise the glorification of terrorism, yet they do nothing about this book, which blatantly does both.
"Perhaps the explanation is just that they do not take it seriously. "I fear that is exactly the problem," says Dr Sookhdeo. "The trouble is that Tony Blair and other ministers see Islam through the prism of their own secular outlook.
They simply do not realise how seriously Muslims take their religion. Islamic clerics regard themselves as locked in mortal combat with secularism.
"For example, one of the fundamental notions of a secular society is the moral importance of freedom, of individual choice. But in Islam, choice is not allowable: there cannot be free choice about whether to choose or reject any of the fundamental aspects of the religion, because they
are all divinely ordained. God has laid down the law, and man must obey.
'Islamic clerics do not believe in a society in which Islam is one religion among others in a society ruled by basically non-religious laws. They believe it must be the dominant religion - and it is their aim to achieve this.
"That is why they do not believe in integration. In 1980, the Islamic Council of Europe laid out their strategy for the future - and the fundamental rule was never dilute your presence. That is to say, do not integrate."Rather, concentrate Muslim presence in a particular area until you are a majority in that area, so that the institutions of the local community come to reflect Islamic structures. The education system will be Islamic, the shops will serve only halal food, there will be no advertisements showing naked or semi-naked women, and so on.
"That plan, says Dr Sookhdeo, is being followed in Britain. "That is why you are seeing areas which are now almost totally Muslim. The next step will be pushing the Government to recognise sharia law for Muslim communities - which will be backed up by the claim that it is "racist" or "Islamophobic" or "violating the rights of Muslims" to deny them sharia law.
"There's already a Sharia Law Council for the UK. The Government has already started making concessions: it has changed the law so that there are sharia-compliant mortgages and sharia pensions.
"Some Muslims are now pressing to be allowed four wives: they say it is part of their religion. They claim that not being allowed four wives is a denial of their religious liberty. There are Muslim men in Britain who marry and divorce three women, then marry a fourth time - and stay married, in sharia law, to all four."The more fundamentalist clerics think that it is only a matter of
time before they will persuade the Government to concede on the issue of sharia law. Given the Government's record of capitulating, you can see why they believe that.
"Dr Sookhdeo's vision of a relentless battle between secular and Islamic Britain seems hard to reconcile with the co-operation that seems to mark the vast majority of the interactions between the two communities.
"Well, it isn't me who says Islam is at war with secularisation," he says. "That's how Islamic clerics describe the situation.
"But isn't it true that most Muslims who live in theocratic states want to get out of them as quickly as possible and live in a secular country such as Britain or America? And that most Muslims who come to Britain adopt the values of a liberal, democratic, tolerant society, rather than insisting on the inflexible rules of their religion?"
You have to distinguish between ordinary Muslims and their self-appointed leaders," explains Dr
Sookhdeo. "I agree that the best hope for our collective future is that the majority of Muslims who have grown up here have accepted the secular nature of the British state and society, the division between religion and politics, and the importance of allowing people to choose freely how they will live.
"But that is not how most of the clerics talk. And, more significantly, it is not how the 'community leaders' whom the Government has decided represent the Muslim community think either.
"Take, for example, Tariq Ramadan, whom the Government has appointed as an adviser because ministers think he is a 'community leader'. Ramadan sounds, in public, very moderate. But in reality, he has some very extreme views. He attacks liberal Muslims as 'Muslims without Islam'. He is affiliated to the violent and uncompromising Muslim Brotherhood."He calls the education in the state schools of the West 'aggression against the Islamic personality of the child'. He has said that 'the Muslim respects the laws of the country only if they do not contradict any Islamic principle'. He has added that 'compromising on principles is a sign of fear and weakness'.
"So what's the answer? What should the Government be doing? "First, it should try to engage with the real Muslim majority, not with the self-appointed 'community leaders' who don't actually represent anyone: they have not been elected, and the vast majority of ordinary Muslims have nothing to do with them.
"Second, the Government should say no to faith-based schools, because they are a block to integration. There should be no compromise over education, or over English as the language of education. The policy of political multiculturalism should be reversed."The hope was that it would to ensure separate communities would soften at the edges and integrate. But the opposite has in fact happened: Islamic communities have hardened. There is much less integration than there was for the generation that arrived when I did. There will be much less in the future if the present trend continues.
"Finally, the Government should make it absolutely clear: we welcome diversity, we welcome different religions - but all of them have to accept the secular basis of British law and society. That is a non-negotiable condition of being here."If the Government does not do all of those things then I fear for the future, because Islamic communities within Britain will form a state within a state. Religion will occupy an ever-larger place in our collective political life. And, speaking as a religious man myself, I fear that outcome."

This doe's not suprise me in the least. Williams is certainly not born again and has been living contradictory to Christian beliefs for a long time.

See this article from the bbc....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/2172918.stm

[i]Update: I just read this article this morning. It appears that the Archbishop has gathered quite a bit of protest to his remarks, and he is trying to "backtrack" his position. [/i]

[b]Bishops' backlash as Archbishop of Canterbury defends calls for sharia law[/b]
8 February 2008
4:37 P.M.

The Archbishop of Canterbury today launched a desperate backtrack over his endorsement of sharia law as his own bishops lined up to attack him.

Claiming he never called for the introduction of the Muslim system, Dr Rowan Williams claimed he wanted to "tease out some of the broader issues around the rights of religious groups within a secular state".

In a statement on his website based on his controversial lecture in London last night, he added he had only used sharia as an example.

Dr Williams' comments, however, are likely to do little to stem the rising tide of anger from senior clergy.

As public condemnation of his speech grew, some of his own bishops were calling for his resignation.

In an astonishing attack, one senior Church of England clergyman demanded he stepped down immediately and branded him "gullible".

Meanwhile, the Bishop of Rochester, the Rt Rev Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, claimed it would be "simply impossible" to introduce sharia law in Britain.

The clergyman was put under police protection last month after receiving death threats following his claims that parts of Britain are 'no-go areas' for non-Muslims.

Today he claimed that sharia would be "in tension" with current laws, including the rights of women.

Dr Nazir-Ali, who holds dual British and Pakistani citizenship, also added that Muslim women's groups had blocked an attempt to introduce sharia in marriage dispute cases in Canada.

Debates on sharia "are not an argument for disturbing the integrity of a legal tradition which is rooted in the quite different moral and spiritual vision deriving from the Bible," he concluded.

In a separate attack, a clergyman identified only as a long-standing member of the Church's governing body the General Synod, told The Times that many people had now lost confidence in the Archbishop.

"I am just so shocked, and cannot believe a man of his intelligence could be so gullible," he said.

"I can only assume that all the Muslims he meets are senior leaders of the community who tell him what a wonderful book the Koran is.

"There have been a lot of calls today for him to resign. I don't suppose he will take any notice, but yes, he should resign."

The comments followed the Archbishop's statement that it seemed "unavoidable" that some form of sharia law will be introduced in Britain.

This morning, the Bishop of Southwark the Right Reverend Tom Butler was the first to break ranks and publicly attack Dr Williams.

He said: "It will take a great deal more thought and work before I think it's a good idea."

Asked on BBC Radio 4's Today programme whether the Church of England leader, Dr Rowan Williams, should have been more diplomatic in his speech which sparked the controversy, Dr Butler said: "The Archbishop has a way with language but this was a very heavy lecture."

He admitted that the Dr Williams had entered a "minefield" with his views on sharia law and it was not clear whether he would backtrack on behalf of the Church of England, on this issue.

He said: "Like all bishops I'm waking up this morning to a shoal of emails from clergy asking what's going on."

Culture Secretary Andy Burnham also launched a ferocious backlash against the Archbishop of Canterbury's claims about sharia law.

The Cabinet minister warned against such a radical legal shake-up in the UK stressing it would be a "recipe for social chaos".

Dr Williams faced a barrage of criticism for arguing that sharia law should be given some form of legal status in the UK.

Voicing the views of many MPs, Mr Burnham said: "This isn't a path down which we should go. The system, the British legal system, should apply to everybody equally.

"You cannot run two systems of law alongside each other. That in my view would be a recipe for chaos, social chaos. British law has to be based on British values.

"If people choose to live in this country, they choose to abide by that law and that law alone.

"It has got to be fundamental and a cornerstone of our country and our democracy that everybody is equal before that one system of British law."

This morning it also emerged that sharia crime courts are already operating in parts of Britain.

According to a youth worker, a group of Somali youths were arrested by police on suspicion of stabbing another Somali teenager.

But the victim's family told officers the matter would be settled out of court and the suspects were released on bail.

A sharia court was convened and elders ordered the assailants to compensate the victim.

The Archbishop of Canterbury caused consternation yesterday when he called for Islamic law to be recognised in Britain.

He declared that sharia and Parliamentary law should be given equal legal status so the people could choose which governs their lives.

This raised the prospect of Islamic courts in Britain with full legal powers to approve polygamous marriages, grant easy divorce for men and prevent finance firms from charging interest.

His comments in a BBC interview and a lecture to lawyers were condemned at a time when government ministers are striving to encourage integration and stop the nation from "sleepwalking to segregation".

The Prime Minister rapidly distanced himself from Dr Williams's view. Gordon Brown's spokesman said: "Our general position is that sharia law cannot be used as a justification for committing breaches of English law, nor should the principles of sharia law be included in a civil court for resolving contractual disputes.

"The Prime Minister believes British law should apply in this country, based on British values."

Dr Williams's words opened a chasm over Islam between senior leaders of the Church of England, who are already trying to deal with an Anglican war over gay rights which broke out after he was appointed archbishop.

The Bishop of Rochester, Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, is facing death threats following his warning last month about Muslim "no-go areas" in Britain.

And the Archbishop of York Dr John Sentamu, who has been fiercely critical of Muslim extremists, said last year that "the imposition of sharia law, Britain as a Muslim society - that will never happen".

In his lecture, 57-year-old Dr Williams said that "we have to think a little harder about the role and rule of law in a plural society of overlapping identities".

He added that it would be possible to develop "a scheme in which individuals retain the liberty to choose the jurisdiction under which they will seek to resolve certain carefully specified matters, so that power-holders are forced to compete for the loyalty of their shared constituents.

"This may include aspects of marital law, the regulation of financial transactions, and authorised structures of mediation and conflict resolution."

The archbishop attempted to distance himself from the extreme legal systems run in Islamic countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, where adultery can be punished by death and women who behave independently risk harsh punishments.

"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 - the extreme punishments, the attitudes to women as well," he said.

Dr Williams pointed out that Jewish Beth Din courts already operate in Britain. But these, like sharia arrangements currently existing in Muslim areas, are voluntary understandings conducted with the agreement of participants.

Alternative sharia courts as proposed by the archbishop would dish out enforceable law.

Muslim groups responded cautiously to Dr Williams's proposals. A spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain said: "We will need to look carefully at the archbishop's lecture."

The Ramadhan Foundation youth organisation said the scheme would help build respect and tolerance.

Its director Mohammed Shafiq said: "Sharia law for civil matters is something which has been introduced in some western countries with much success; I believe that Muslims would take huge comfort from the Government allowing civil matters being resolved according to their faith."

But he added: "We are however disappointed that the Archbishop of Canterbury was silent when Bishop Nazir-Ali was promoting intolerance and lying about no-go areas for Christians in the UK by Muslim extremists.

"Unless he speaks out against this intolerance, Muslims will take his silence as authorisation and support for such comments."

Trevor Phillips, chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, said Dr Williams's comments gave "succour to extremists".

"He needs to understand that his words carry enormous weight," he said in a Channel 4 interview.

"What he seems to be talking about is a situation in which people are treated differently under the law according to their religion. People cannot be treated differently. Everyone should be equal in the eyes of the law.

"I don't doubt the archbishop's desire to accommodate diversity, but we cannot do so at the expense of our common values."

He described Dr Williams as "muddled" and "dangerous".

Mr Phillips was the first prominent Labour figure to condemn multiculturalism, the Left-wing doctrine which promotes different cultures.

He declared that under its influence Britain was sleepwalking to segregation.

Yesterday he said the "implication that British courts should treat people differently based on their faith is divisive and dangerous.

"It risks removing the protection afforded by law, for example, to children in custody cases or women in divorce proceedings.

"The first people who would suffer would be ethnic-minority citizens. Follow the logic of this extreme multiculturalism through and where do we end up?

With a group of white Christians in Barking and Dagenham deciding they had a conscientious objection to non-white Muslims in their neighbourhoods - and seeking the support of the courts?"

Mike Judge, of the Christian Institute, said: "I am appalled that the head of the Church of England is advocating that parts of sharia law should be introduced into British law.

"The idea that you can have the moderate bits without the nasty bits coming along at a later time is naive."

Tory backbencher David Davies, an Anglican, said: "I am astounded. Dr Williams is a nice enough man, very intellectual, but he has clearly lost the plot.

"He's one of the most influential Christian prelates in the world and he's supposed to be standing up for Christianity.

"What he's doing is abandoning his own religion. If people come to this country they should be prepared to compromise their own traditions to fit in with the host country.

Tory cohesion spokesman Baroness Warsi, a Muslim herself, said: "The archbishop's comments are unhelpful and may add to the confusion that already exists in our communities.

"Freedom under the law allows respect for some religious practices.

"But let's be absolutely clear. All British citizens must be subject to British laws developed through Parliament and the courts."

[url=http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23436203-details/Church+backlash+as+Archbishop+of+Canterbury+calls+for+Sharia+law+in+Britain/article.do]Click here[/url] to read full article.

:-)

EDITED TO ADD DISCLAIMER: This is an article/commentary from a FoxNews Associate on their website. These are not my words. (Just to avoid any further confusion!) The words in [b]bold[/b] towards the end of the article show why I posted it here.

------------

[url=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,329725,00.html]Sharia Law - Closer Than You Think...[/url]

An American woman working in Saudi Arabia was arrested and spent time in jail where she was mistreated in various ways all because she went over to a male colleague in a Starbucks and sat with him.

It's true. This happened a couple days ago to a woman who — before this incident — had been gushing about the so-called "freedoms" in Saudi Arabia.

But when she exercised her freedom to sit down with a guy she knew from work, she was busted by the Saudi morals police, arrested and hauled off to jail.

This is Sharia law at work, and even though some of my co-workers are always telling me to take a "chill pill" when it comes to Sharia law, I'm afraid I just must tell you about this anyway.

Yes, it's Saudi Arabia and where else would you expect Sharia law, which is law based on the Koran. I get that part.

But at the same time today the archbishop of Canterbury, the leader of the Anglican Church in Great Britain, said to his fellow Brits, we're just going to have to accept Sharia law and get used to it.

So, now does it maybe strike closer to home than faraway Saudi Arabia? Here's the leader of the official Christian church in Britain saying we've got so many Muslims in this country who do not pay the slightest attention to English common law that we have to get used to the idea of Sharia law.

Well, why not just give up and vacate the country altogether Mr. Archbishop, your High Holiness, sir?

Sharia law is what got the American woman arrested in Starbucks.

Sharia law is what got the Taliban fired up in Afghanistan about making sure girls didn't go to school and daughters who have a crush on a boy can be killed by her father or brothers to preserve the honor of the family.

[b]Organized Muslim groups in Canada have demanded Sharia law there. It's closer than you think if it's Canada.[/b]

Heads up, Americans. Pay attention to Sharia law if you go to Saudi Arabia. And if you find someone demanding it here, make sure he is shouted down fast.

Hi SimpleLiving,
You said
Quote:
saying we've got so many Muslims in this country who do not pay the slightest attention to English common law that we have to get used to the idea of Sharia law.

Well, why not just give up and vacate the country altogether Mr. Archbishop, your High Holiness, sir?

Dorcas,

What I posted was only another article/commentary from FoxNews on the subject. [b]These were not my words at all.[/b] I happened to see the article and saw how some in Canada are demanding it, too, and thought I'd share it, since it hits close to home for us in the U.S.

David Pawson in his book "The Challenge of Islam to Christians" has already warned about that.
England had some of the strongest Christian witness over centuries and is now one of the leading neo pagan society in the world.
Hardly had any other nation ever fallen from such hights.
May be God has to allow this to happen so that the church can be purified and led back to its original calling to be light and salt.

On the other hand I noticed that Muslims in the UK are more open to the gospel than right now than many other groups in society, I have seen some turning to Christ.
Philip

SimpleLiving wrote:

An American woman working in Saudi Arabia was arrested and spent time in jail where she was mistreated in various ways all because she went over to a male colleague in a Starbucks and sat with him.

It's true. This happened a couple days ago to a woman who — before this incident — had been gushing about the so-called "freedoms" in Saudi Arabia.

But when she exercised her freedom to sit down with a guy she knew from work, she was busted by the Saudi morals police, arrested and hauled off to jail.

In Saudi woman are not aloud in the same area of a shop. For example if you go to the local burger joint there are two shops side by side. One side is for males and the other side for females and children.

This woman must have been aware of this as when you first go to Saudi evryone makes you aware of the rules. I think she and her male friend was foolish to even try to have coffee together.

I have been in Saudi and have testified on what Jesus did in my life to Arab co-workers. I am still alive and have my head on my shoulders and my hands on my arms and spent no time in the jail.

I find many Americans get hung up about freedom and get themselves in a lot of trouble when you are in another country because of this mindset. I have heard them say "they can't do that" but you are in there country and it's a case of "oh yes they can"

In Afirca if these Police stop me and they want money, unless I have someone to talk to them who is higher in rank to talk to them. I will get the money down as low as I can and pay. That's the the way the cookie crumbles there.

As for Mr Williams I sent him an email pointing out to him that he does not represent all Christian in our country and we all are not as weak as he himself is.

God will send us a Move of God in this nation of the UK. He has a plan, people will stand up and take notice of what God will do in our Nation.

I've got a good one for you.

Will Barak HUISEIN Obama be the next president of the USA ?

Muslem leadership?

Instead of the supreme court we could call it the sharia court

David

by murrcolr on 2008/2/23 8:08:20

Quote:

SimpleLiving wrote:

An American woman working in Saudi Arabia was arrested and spent time in jail where she was mistreated in various ways all because she went over to a male colleague in a Starbucks and sat with him.

It's true. This happened a couple days ago to a woman who — before this incident — had been gushing about the so-called "freedoms" in Saudi Arabia.

But when she exercised her freedom to sit down with a guy she knew from work, she was busted by the Saudi morals police, arrested and hauled off to jail.

Just a correction, please. This should say, "SimpleLiving QUOTED, [i]not [u]wrote.[/u][/i]

I posted an article. These were not my thoughts and words.

I'm beginning to regret posting this article because this is the second time it's been referred to as [i]my[/i] words.

SimpleLiving wrote:

It happens automatically when you hit the quote button, I understand fully it was not your writing, I did not mean to cause you distress.