It is not up to Prince Charles or any other non-Muslim to say what "true" Islam is. But I still don't see that anything good can come out of ignoring that the jihad terrorists are motivated by the Qur'an and Sunnah -- and Sir Iqbal's remarks below are particularly un-reassuring. Still, I don't see any problem with calling on Muslims to "root out extremist preachers" or trying to "tackle the evils within the Muslim community," if it is undertaken honestly and thoroughly. "Root out extremists, prince urges," from the BBC, with thanks to Anthony:
Prince Charles has urged "every true Muslim" to root out extremist preachers in the wake of the London bomb attacks.An "evil influence" appeared to have been brought to bear on the suspected bombers, whose "atrocities" must be condemned, he told the Daily Mirror.
Others must resist the temptation to condemn the Muslim community for the actions of an evil minority, he added.
Tony Blair has said talks will start on new laws to make it easier to deport people trying to "incite hatred".
Muslim leaders say they are "shocked" British Muslims may have been behind last Thursday's attacks.
'No link to faith'
"Some may think this cause is Islam. It is anything but. It is a perversion of traditional Islam," Prince Charles said.
The prince said Muslim leaders were right to point out the attacks had no link to "true faith".
"Those who claim to have murdered in the name of Islam have no care for the lives they have so brutally destroyed.
"Offended by the good relations between faiths and cultures, the extremists seek to break up the communities that make up our modern, multi-cultural society," the prince wrote.
Sir Iqbal Sacranie said Islam could never justify the killings.He said Britain's tradition of welcoming new communities had to be upheld to prevent the bombers achieving their aim of dividing the community.
Now that's counterintuitive, as well as false. The bombers don't want to divide the community. They want to subjugate it under Islamic law. And to import more immigrants at this point, instead of becoming more careful about the values of those who are brought in, would seem to me to be foolish.
On Tuesday, the Muslim Council of Britain's secretary general, Sir Iqbal Sacranie, said: "Nothing in Islam can ever justify the evil actions of the bombers."They happen to be Muslims and it's not that Islam is the problem, it is those individuals, it is the criminality that is there," he said.
This is disingenuous on two counts. Sir Iqbal obviously has not proven to the jihadists' satisfaction that "nothing in Islam" can justify what they're doing. He needs to do so now more than ever, if he can. And it isn't that they "happen to be Muslims" who committed murder. They did the bombing because they were Muslims -- by the account of all the groups that claimed credit, they did it working from Islamic principles to advance the aims of the jihad as they see them. Let Sir Iqbal address that honestly, and he will have earned the trust of all Britons. But at this point they should receive him with extreme reserve.
On Wednesday, Mr Blair met Muslim MPs to discuss how to tackle "this evil within the Muslim community"."In the end, this can only be taken on and defeated by the community itself," he said.
Combined with strong law-enforcement measures by British authorities.
Less than a year ago Prince Charles convened a secret conference with Muslim clerics from around the world to try and get them to stop imposing the death penalty for apostasy in their countries.
They said that they would think about it but asked Charles to not speak about this publicly.
One of the titles of the British monarch is the 'Defender of the Faith', in fact it's on our coins, that it what the initials FD stand for. I've heard it that Charles would like to be known as the 'Defender of Faiths'. I don't feel very comfortable about this as it would mean Islam too. For this reason I hope that the Queen lives as long as her mum and when we sing the National Anthem, I love the line which says 'Long to reign over us'.
Mr.Spencer"...they did it working from Islamic princples to advance the aims of the jihad..."
Mr.Spencer,
Do the Jihad principles in Islam justify killing of innocent Christians(as most of the victims of 7/7 were Christians)?
Prince Charles has urged "every true Muslim" to root out extremist preachers in the wake of the London bomb attacks.
What does he mean?It would be against Islam for every TRUE MUSLIM to root out extremist preachers
Secret,
You ask: "Do the Jihad principles in Islam justify killing of innocent Christians(as most of the victims of 7/7 were Christians)?"
Innocents, no. But they didn't consider them innocent, and as such they were fair game.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Mr.Spencer,
After reading your reply I think I did a great mistake.I read your post carefully.You were correct from beginning!!-"...they did it working from Islamic principles to advance the aims of the jihad AS THEY SEE THEM..."
They did the bombing because they were Muslims
Before any straw men pop up, let's make clear that this is not the same as saying "Because they were Muslims, they did the bombing".
Has anyone, has any newspaper in England, bothered to print out the relevant passages in the Qur'an, or the relevant Hadith, or ever bothered to tell readers what, exactly, the Sira tells Muslims Muhammad did, and to whom, and when, and why? Couldn't at least one paper -- possibly The Telegraph -- begin to do that. It could then, if it wished, publish any Muslim replies. Let replies fly in about Aisha, the Banu Qurayza, Asma bint Marwan, and so on. Publish them. Publish what the most authoritative Islamic commentators and writers have to say. Let's educate everyone about Islam, so they will be able to say, with conviction, that Prince Charles is absolutely right, that this is a "perversion of traditional Islam."
Or not.
What I mean to say by the above is that they would not have bombed London if they were not Muslims.
This is not the same as saying that all Muslims are going go bomb London because they are Muslims.
Viking5,
Whom are you calling straw men?
The other thread is too long, so I'll say it here.
Tony Blair said that this was a small group of extremists.
How on earth would he know if it was a small group of extremists?
Does he know them all personally?
He keeps trying to protect Islam. WHY?
and then
from sky news:
Really? The person who blew himself up yesterday in Iraq did not know the person who blew himself up the day before in Israel. The person who blew himself up in Israel did not know any of the London bombers.
As a matter of fact the persons who flew the planes into the Twin Towers did not know bombers like Richard Reid, a British national aka shoe bomber, Kamal Bourgass (UK ricin threat),2 suicide bombers who killed 14 at a Moscow Concert, the 2 female suicide bombers who killed 14 people outside a rock festival near Moscow, the murder of 130 at the Dubrovka theater center in Moscow, 2 passenger planes hijacked and crashed killing 94 passengers, the Beslan horrors, the Thailand Bhuddist beheaders, murderers of Nigerian Christians, etc etc. ..
They didn't know each other, they never met. They all attended different mosques in different countries and had different imams and teachers.
The only common link is Islam. Hate and murder are being taught world-wide in Islam.
Do not expect rational people to believe that there is "NO LINK TO FAITH". It is clearly the Islamic faith providing the evil force behind all of this bloodletting.
Why does England put up with this pompous Prince is beyond me. A superior dhimmi to help guide England into submission. Boy how far the royal family has fallen in 60 years.
Prince Charles is a multi culti imbecile. He has never missed a chance to suck up to Islam. He's been to mosque openings as guest of honor. What a meathead.
There is a pretty decent leader in today's Telegraph - not exactly quoting the relevant passages of Quran and Hadith, but quite straight about the goals of the jihadis (although still insisting that there are also "devout Muslims" who "manage" the job of separating religion and politics):
"First, we believe in the rule of law, meaning the successive judgments of the common law and the statutory declarations of Parliament. Those who wish to establish Sharia law in Britain are irreconcilables.
Second, we believe in the sovereignty of the Queen in Parliament. Political legitimacy flows upwards, from the will of the people and the traditions of the constitution, not downwards, from the interpretation of the will of God. Moreover, the state has a monopoly of coercion. The use of violence by other individuals or groups, in whatever cause, is illegitimate; those who espouse insurrection or jihad are irreconcilables.
Third, we believe that the nation is the ultimate object of political loyalty. Just as we resent the pretensions of the European Union to supersede the nation state, so we resist the idea that British citizens owe a greater allegiance to the global ambitions of a religious sect; those who say so are irreconcilables.
Fourth, we believe in a secular state, which allows the free expression of a plurality of religious beliefs. One of the most difficult aspects of this debate is the fact that many Muslims do not acknowledge the difference, or accept a separation, between the secular and the spiritual spheres. Mohammed, after all, was both a religious and a temporal leader, a prophet and a politician. This is a considerable stumbling block to the assimilation of Muslims in the West. Yet many devout Muslims manage it; those who wish Britain to be an Islamic theocracy are irreconcilables."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;jsessionid=TQFIXRH1CJCQHQFIQMGSNAGAVCBQWJVC?xml=/opinion/2005/07/14/dl1401.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2005/07/14/ixopinion.html&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=31038
Secret,
A "straw man" isn't a person, it's a rhetorical strategy. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Imam Charles concurs with Imam Blair. Apparently, Prince Charles' nutsack is empty, for even the Queen of Denmark has shown more courage by openly saying that Islam is an intolerable religion.
Prince Charles is a nincompoop who will never be king.
The man talks to plants. Who is going to listen to this jug eared idiot ? He comes from a family of idiots.
A royal effort to polish a turd... Pardon my French!
TooBad...Talking to plants is only bad when they talk back to you. It's not too detrimental if they communicate basic needs, like "feed me, I'm hungry", or "I need water". It's only when plants say things like "I am the Lord Thy God, worship Me", that there is a problem...Weak minded characters like the Prince and muslims take that kind of talk seriously. The Prince has his plants to revere and the muslims discovered a rock to worship. Plants talk a lot, while rocks dont say much...Thats why all the Prince has to do to talk to his plants, is to sit in the middle of a bunch of them...light up one of those royal quality marijuana joints, kick back and start conversing...Muslims conversing with a black rock is a little harder...that requires praying in it's direction five times a day and long term persistance. And then there is no guarantee that the rock will speak...As far as I know there are no reports of the black stone talking yet, but when it does it will have a lot to say...have a good day...
http://www.sunnah.org/nl/v0104/prince.htm
http://www.meforum.org/article/356
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/119
Just asking.
If you really want to know what a dimwit Prince Charles is, I will give you a great example:
In the South-West Dhimmi Charles is building a model town, its very telling that he has included a Mosque but no church. The mind boggles.
All the local people are up in arms, its one of the few places in the UK that does not have a significant Muslim population.
Prince Charles sends memo after memo to the government, but the government ignores him, they have found out that he has the attention span of a fruit fly, so if they don't reply he moves onto something else.
Hugh posted:Has anyone, has any newspaper in England, bothered to print out the relevant passages in the Qur'an.
Four articles on this page
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;jsessionid=1R5FSCGT32Y5XQFIQMFSNAGAVCBQ0JVC?view=HOME&grid=P18&menuId=-1&menuItemId=-1&_requestid=13197
-----------------------------
Christpher Hitchins
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=15713152&method=full&siteid=94762&headline=we-cannot-surrender-name_page.html
-----------------------------
Daniel Johnson
http://www.nysun.com/article/16991
Slowly we are getting there but the real problem goes unanswered. What if the present generation of muslims in the West adopted moderation, such that even Mr Spencer was satisfied. Successive generations of muslims, once their numbers are large enough, will surely revoke the arrangement and adopt the traditional interpreation of the koran. It is written folks and cannot be abrogated, as we on thgis forum know well. Period. Muslims proudly state that the koran is unchanging and unchangeable.
What happens in the future and how we avert that danger - that is the issue that should really engage us.
Elephant:For this reason I hope that the Queen lives as long as her mum and when we sing the National Anthem, I love the line which says 'Long to reign over us'.
'Long to reign over us'. Amen. May God give her a long life. If she lives to the age of the Queen Mum, it will put paid to the Dhimiwit Charles.
Good post duh_swami.
DP 111
Fantastic post by Daniel Johnson. Just the best, he's really lifted my spirits.