England's Prince Charles picked up an honorary degree from Al-Azhar University in Cairo and delivered an "impassioned" speech as well. From the TimesOnline:
The Prince of Wales took a swipe today at the publication of the Danish cartoons which sparked a wave of violent protests in the Islamic world for their satirical treatment of the Prophet Muhammad. On a visit to Egypt, the Prince, who is touring the Middle East with the Duchess of Cornwall, expressed concerns over the "failure to listen and to respect what is precious and sacred to others".The heir to the throne addressed more than 800 Islamic scholars at Cairo's al-Azhar University, the world's oldest university, and called for greater tolerance between different religions - especially the three great "Abrahamic faiths": Christianity, Judaism and Islam.
"The roots of the faith that we share in the One God, the God of Abraham, give us enduring values," he said. "We need the courage to speak of them and affirm them again and again to a world troubled by dissension."
The Duchess, who had earlier removed her shoes and donned a veil to tour the elaborate al-Azahr mosque, watched from the audience as the Prince delivered his serious, impassioned 30-minute speech which he had titled "Unity in Faith".
The Prince said: "The recent ghastly strife and anger over the Danish cartoons shows the danger that comes of our failure to listen and to respect what is precious and sacred to others. In my view, the true mark of a civilised society is the respect it pays to minorities and to strangers."...
"'People who are reasonable and responsible and feel things in the heart need to work even harder, I think, and speak up louder about the vital importance of understanding that, at the end of the day, the three great Abrahamic faiths do share an awful lot more in common than perhaps people realise.'
He added: 'It’s tolerance, it’s understanding of what other people hold sacred, which I think is so vital — the old wisdom that is contained within the scriptures of ‘do unto others as you would have them do to you’.'”
Er, Charles... ...the one thing that separates Islam from the other two Abrahamic faiths is its complete lack of tolerance. And that's what's the obstacle to "unity in faith".
Who elected this buffoon? You know the answer. As an Englishman he does not speak for me. His opinion has no value and he should not have a platform.
I've come across this phrase "Abrahamic faiths" in Bernard Lewis's writings, too.
I think it is a form of the genetic fallacy
Since Hamas was elected (by universal plebiscite - you forgot the qualification; there are many forms of election) presumably they "should have a platform". That's the logical conclusion to that line of thought.
Now let's all just imagine this, if someone were to blaspheme Christ in some similar way like what the Danish did, do you Christians really think you can be so-called "tolerant" of that ?
Now let's all just imagine this, if someone were to blaspheme Christ in some similar way like what the Danish did, do you Christians really think you can be so-called "tolerant" of that ?
A lot of people thought Monty Python's "Life of Brian" and the movie "Dogma" (which showed that Kevin Smith is completely overrated and should have hung it up after "Clerks") were extremely offensive, but I don't remember any movie theatres burning down. "Life of Brian" was even shown at the religiously affiliated university I attended, but the students who were against it just complained in the newspaper and didn't shoot Graham Chapman, who happened to visit the campus around that time.
Reginald explains this in-depth in YAAFM 12 (just google "YAAFM 12". Be forewarned that there is much fould language in his explanation.
The european royal families are anachronistic relics of a bygone age. They belong to the international jet-set and don't do so because of any outstanding qualities they posseses, but by inheritance of money, wealth and status. Furthermore they are globalists, often having family members all over Europe and the rest of the world. The Danish royal family for many years tried to distance thenselves from the political right in the country because of the anti-immiration warnings of the right but have ultimately been forced to drop that posture. Our royal family is of mixed French/Chinese/Australian/German/Swedish descent and as such they don't represent the average man nor do they deserve to have the power and position they have.
Now let's all just imagine this, if someone were to blaspheme Christ in some similar way like what the Danish did, do you Christians really think you can be so-called "tolerant" of that?
Come on, Infidel, Christians and Christ are ridiculed every day. I have yet to hear of a "piss Mohammed".
While you might hear about official protests or boycotts, you DON'T see mobs of seething Christians screaming "death to South Park" and burning down TV studios.
I detect a great deal of insecurity in the Muslim world regarding their prophet. Violence and threats in response to questions and/or ridicule are not the hallmark of a confident faith.
The truth of the matter is that to be a Christian is to accept insults and persecution as part of one's faith in the Lord. It is often a way of making one's Christian faith stronger as well as in the creation of new Christians.
You know, when I glanced at the titles of different pieces put up today, over on the left, I did what I usually do. I started with the stories under "Jihad Watch," and read up, from the older stories to the newer ones, looking for something that struck my fancy for comment. And then I do the same for "Dhimmi Watch." And in doing so today, I managed to run together in my mind two of the titles under the latter, so that they became one, and I found nothing strange about it.
The title of the story that I thought I read was:
"Man found with wife's head in bag. Charles criticises cartoons on Middle East tour with Camilla."
And that is my comment on Prince Charles and his disgusting remarks.
I created this fake NY Times page on my blog:
Blogovia
to lampoon the buffoon Charles and the sorry state of affairs in England.
Just do me a favor: NO RIOTING!!!!
Charles "...expressed concerns over the "failure to listen and to respect what is precious and sacred to others" (from the article). How sweet.
So is he going to give the next session of that lecture in Afghanistan? Saudi Arabia? Anywhere where anything that is "precious and sacred to others (than Muslims)" is declared criminal and can lead to public execution of those others?
Don't hold your breath.
If this dirty sorry excuse for a royal takes the throne, lets just hope for a NEW MODEL ARMY and a modern day Cromwell to sort out England.
Infidel -
" Now let's all just imagine this, if someone were to blaspheme Christ in some similar way like what the Danish did, do you Christians really think you can be so-called "tolerant" of that?
Lots of people all over the Western world abuse Christianity in this way and much worse, every day - enlighten your ignorance and start living in the real world, please. Christians do not respond in the stupid and psychologically worrying way that mohammedans have responded to the cartoons because they have a sense of humour, not just about their religion but also in general. They admit that they could conceivably be wrong. They most certainly do not presume that they know the full mind of God as you mohammedans do - what blasphemy that is. Apart from anything else they know that God is gentle, kind, loving and forgiving. The great fifth commandment of Christianity is "Thou shalt not kill" with no 'ifs', 'buts' or qualifications. Even a simple Christian soldier agonises for the rest of his/her life over having done his/her duty. They pray for forgiveness in the certain knowledge that Christ, as they see it, died for their sins.
What of mohammedanism - a religion, if one can call it that - that preaches that a mere mortal man has the right, nay, the duty in many circumstances, to kill other human beings. Only the devil (Satan) advocates this. No true God ever would. Therefore, mohamedanism must be a devil worshipping cult and you are all damned into hell when you die unless the one true God, He whom the Christians a least vaguely perceive, chooses to forgive you.
Christians are tolerant every minute of every day of every year. Although I am not a Christian in the sense that many are, I am, nonetheless, proud of them for their forbearance, humour, tolerance, charity, kindness and objectivity - qualities that are completely absent from any mohammedans 'spiritual' life. Yours is not a prophet - just a disgusting man who raped and killed women, and at least one child, couldn't take criticism from a poet, who went into sexual ecstasy at the sight of people being killed - good grief, have you any idea how disgusting and filthy you and your so called religion and your vile psuedo-prophet really are? I suppose not. If you had, you wouldn't follow it.
Please do criticise His Royal Highness Prince Charles too much. By and large his speeches and his behaviour on these types of trips is dictated to him by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. He has very little, if any choice, in the matter.
This episode is rather, and worryingly, far more indicative of the attitudes and beliefs of the UK politicians and civil servants than it is of his own personal beliefs, suspect though those may be, and I admit that they probably are.
He has to behave as he is instructed to behave - rather like an ambassador.
The first sentence should have read:
"Please do not criticise His Royal Highness Prince Charles too much."
My apologies for the typographical error. It's having to use a laptop in London - I'm not used to this keyboard.
odin, king of gods -
He is, nonetheless, our potential future Head of State and, in my opinion, it behooves us to try to guide him gently, and with tolerance and politeness, into a more aware state of mind.
I, for one, prefer the inherited system over the elected for this, in our constitution purely titular, office - who on earth would want President Blair or President Cameron. President Thatcher would have been beyond the pale - the lady was hubristic enough as things stood, without that, and can you imagine what a disaster a President Major might have been!
Prince Charles is a selfish man. He is more concerned about his position,his wealth,and his Mum's crown jewerls than his role as the protecter of Faithof his country,or its citizens.
The recent threat by the Alqida, that the Queen of England is an enemy of Islam,and to be targetted, has created fear in Charle's heart,about his future. So he undertakes the unpaid jihad of Islam Promotion around the world. For this he is ready to do any thing. He will wear a cap,and do namaz, criticise Americans for their treatment of Muslims after Sep.11,and go over to Mecca and kiss the khaba stone. How unfortunate,the Britishers are to have him as a future king. He is fit to be a unpopular 'clown'.
In general, I like Prince Charles. He is a much abused man, and does his best to make a contribution to society as much as he is allowed to. The trouble is that, like every English person, he can be fantastically obstinate, and never more obstinate than when he is in the wrong. The English have a sublime way not to seem even to hear any argument they do not want to hear, and the Prince of Wales is in this a true representative of his nation.
Certiorari wrote: "He is, nonetheless, our potential future Head of State and, in my opinion, it behooves us to try to guide him gently, and with tolerance and politeness, into a more aware state of mind."
Well, I guess I'm a more impacient personality than you. The royal families are internationally oriented and as such naturally interested in promoting the multi-cultural society. I don't believe that you can change their minds and make them say "Islam is the enemy of the western civilisation", because making such a clear good vs. evil distinction goes against the vision about the multi-culti utopia that the western elite dream about. My opinion is clearly that these peopel do more harm than good and that it would be better if the last european monarchies where abolished.
"I, for one, prefer the inherited system over the elected for this, in our constitution purely titular, office - who on earth would want President Blair or President Cameron. President Thatcher would have been beyond the pale - the lady was hubristic enough as things stood, without that, and can you imagine what a disaster a President Major might have been!"
I don't know so much about the British politicians, but it's not all republics where the president has great personal power like in the USA. In France the power is devided between president and a PM, in some countries the president is almost purely titular, just like the royals we have.
The difference is that you can get rid of a titular president, aswell as a bad PM in a republic, you don't have to wait for some miraculous change-of-mind that will probably never come. I have no patience for this and if the western civilisation is to be rescued it shouldn't hinge on inbred royals who have been corrupted by privileges and who are biased in favor of multi-culti globalization because of their own international character.
Charles, Al Gore, and Jimmy Carter should all think about living in the Middle East. It seems they'd all be much happier there.
Where to begin (and, when will it end)? Quotes from the article…
“The Prince of Wales took a swipe today at the publication of the Danish cartoons which sparked a wave of violent protests in the Islamic world for their satirical treatment of the Prophet Muhammad.”
Not all of the cartoons depicted, much less criticized, Mohammad, but those that did criticize him focussed on terrorism and jihadists’ beliefs, subjugation of women, and suppression of free expression through threat. As usual, the simpletons like Charles focussed on “offensiveness” instead of the substantive issues actually addressed in the cartoons.
“On a visit to Egypt, the Prince, who is touring the Middle East with the Duchess of Cornwall, expressed concerns over the "failure to listen and to respect what is precious and sacred to others".”
Yes, according to the Koran, disbelief/rejection of Islam is worse than killing a Muslim (2:217, 2:191), and there is no penalty for killing a non-Muslim. Only Muslims are considered sacred.
“The heir to the throne addressed more than 800 Islamic scholars at Cairo's al-Azhar University, the world's oldest university, and called for greater tolerance between different religions - especially the three great "Abrahamic faiths": Christianity, Judaism and Islam.”
Greater tolerance--LOL! What about religions other than those three? What about atheists and agnostics? Ho ho! Charles the bigot! We can’t have that! And are you sure Islam is an Abrahamic faith? Because Mohammad said so, and ripped off a bunch of material from the Mishna and Talmud, and then modified it to fit his imperialistic totalitarian objectives (or, indeed, whatever suited his fancy in the moment)? Allow me to quote from an article about Islamic sensitivity and tolerance by
Ayesha Ahmed from faithfreedom.org:
[“Gods of all other religions shall be the fuel of Hell (21:98-100)
All Gods except Allah are created, dead and false, they all lead to hell (16:20-21, 25:17-19, 29:41-42, 37:22-25)
Jesus was a Muslim and a slave/servant of Allah, and not his son (3:52, 4:171-172,4:172, 5:115-117, 5:111-112)
Crucification of Jesus is a lie (4:157)
Doctrine of trinity is infidelity and disbelief, a painful doom awaits for those disbelievers who believe in trinity (5:73)
Christians corrupted the true message (5:14, 15)
People of the book (Jews and Christians) are evil doers, some of whom were converted into apes and swines for their disbelief (5:59-60)
Jews say Ezra is son of God and Christians say Jesus is son of God, they are liars and perverts, May Allah destroy them (9:30)
Mohammed was sent by Allah as a gift to Christians to correct their corruption and misunderstanding of true religion Islam (57:28, 4:47)]”
…and the Koran says May Muslims destroy them or else subjugate them (9:29).
"The roots of the faith that we share in the One God, the God of Abraham, give us enduring values," he said. "We need the courage to speak of them and affirm them again and again to a world troubled by dissension."
All people on the planet are under threat of being killed for criticizing Islam publicly. No one is being punished for singing the praises of the poor misunderstood Islam—indeed, Charles is being rewarded for it. Charles thinks he is courageous for what he is saying? What he is saying constitutes submission. This is why they love him (or, more accurately, what he is) at Al-Azhar.
“The Duchess, who had earlier removed her shoes and donned a veil…”
More submission…the Duchess must do this or else she “spark” Muslim rage.
“to tour the elaborate al-Azahr mosque, watched from the audience as the Prince delivered his serious, impassioned 30-minute speech which he had titled "Unity in Faith".”
Well, I’m relieved to hear that this was a serious impassioned speech. I was getting worried that Charles was being sarcastic.
“The Prince said: "The recent ghastly strife and anger over the Danish cartoons shows the danger that comes of our failure to listen and to respect what is precious and sacred to others. In my view, the true mark of a civilised society is the respect it pays to minorities and to strangers.".”
This useful idiot is so useful to them because he is such an idiot. This man is standing in Egypt, home of the persecuted Coptic Christian minority. More precisely, he is standing in Al-Azhar University, receiving a phony award from an institution that still teaches jihad and still endorses Sura 9: Wage war on the Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians; the law of retaliation applies when a Muslim murders a Muslim, but not when a Muslim intentionally kills a non-Muslim. (BTW, folks, that is yet one more delightful fact that you will learn from Spencer’s (2005) Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam, all supported by the original sources).
Dear Prince: Please do not commit suicide on our (civilization’s) behalf. Of course, you don’t speak on our behalf, really. You would not have a chance of being elected, were you ever to be put to the test. As I understand it, most Brits would vote you off of the island if this were possible. And just a small note: If they make your wife submit to Islamic customs, you should decline the honourary degree. (Did I mention that their laws still permit them to rape your wife?). There is nothing honourary in grovelling in the face of Muslim Arab supremacism.
Paolo -
What was that you said. I don't thimk I heard you. Ah well, can't have been important; just another foreigner yammering on.
:)
rafia -
What a load of prejudiced nonsense.
Charles said: "The recent ghastly strife and anger over the Danish cartoons shows the danger that comes of our failure to listen and to respect what is precious and sacred to others..."
So as someday Head of the Church of England, how does he and his Church reconcile what Christ says about false prophets in Matthew 24: 23-26? Guess like the cartoonists that ghastly strife creator, Jesus of Nazareth, was failing to "respect" those false prophets by urging us to "go not there".
In horticultural terms, Charles seems to view islam as a rose bush whereas in fact it's more of a triffid.
"The Duchess, who had earlier removed her shoes and donned a veil to tour the elaborate al-Azahr mosque, watched from the audience ..."
Lots to think about in that one little phrase.
I too have visited a mosque in the Middle East. It was a historical building in Kayseri, Turkey, but its significance escapes me now. It wasn't one of the official prayer times but there were still a few men scattered throughout on their prayer mats. My Turkish male companion, my daughter and I entered through the front door and we all removed our shoes. That was fine with me -- men remove their shoes, women remove their shoes, no problem. There was no suggestion that my daughter and I needed to wear a headscarf. That was fortunate, for then there would have been a problem. We were treated warmly by a male who seemed to be in charge and were given a short tour during which my friend translated.
I've thought of that many times since and I know that if I'd been asked to cover my head before entering the mosque, I would have refused. If I'd been asked to enter through the women's door, I would have refused.
I'm now contemplating another trip to Turkey and would like to visit Sanli Urfa, the birthplace of Abraham. But I've seen on the internet that males and females must enter the actual birthplace through different entrances. I'm prepared to forego that sight to retain my self-respect. And no, I would never wear a headscarf -- not unless my male companion were also asked to do so.
But I see that Camilla donned the head scarf before entering al-Azahr Mosque. Does she know the true symbolism of that oppressive piece of cloth? Or does she swallow the line about it "protecting female dignity"?
Was she allowed to enter through the front door? If she did, it would have been a concession to her status, and not a recognition that she had any equality with the males present.
Oh, Camilla, too bad you covered your head when male heads remained uncovered -- I thought you had more gumption than that. But I guess it's hard to make waves when hubby is busy trying to smooth them over!
We can thank God that this mad hatted crone is past her child bearing years, and that the horse faced slack jawed prince and she shall have no issue.
This man is supposed to be 'The Prince of Wales'. He should be re-named 'The Prince of the Muslim World', since he does far more for Islam than he has ever done for Wales!
The man is a complete oaf! He should keep his mouth firmly shut, and get on with enjoying the luxuries of life which the United Kingdom willingly puts on a silver, nay gold, platter for him and his 'adorable' wife.
This man certainly doesn't speak for me; and I doubt that he speaks for many other Brits either.
He is a shame to his Crown and to his country!
In an earlier age, he might well have been taken to the Tower of London. And we all know what would have happened to him there!
I have already pointed this out but it will do no harm to do so again, obviously:
"Please do not criticise His Royal Highness Prince Charles too much. By and large his speeches and his behaviour on these types of trips is dictated to him by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. He has very little, if any choice, in the matter.
This episode is rather, and worryingly, far more indicative of the attitudes and beliefs of the UK politicians and civil servants than it is of his own personal beliefs, suspect though those may be, and I admit that they probably are.
He has to behave as he is instructed to behave - rather like an ambassador."
It is desperately unfair to criticise a public servant, as he is in this case, for following the orders that a duly and legally elected Government has given him.
As for the criticisms of the Duchess, what can one say. Would you rather be stuck with the disgusting little bitch who was his first wife - a woman with no intelligence, honour, morals or sense of humour who could never follow an order from a constituted authority and who was a benchmark for selfishness, a mere clothes-horse with all the charisma of a WC (and far less of the functionality).
You all behave as if this couple have a choice about what they say when it is highly unlikely that they do so.
As I said earlier, it is up to us to get the message across to him if we can, but more importantly across to our Governments so that they don't order people to do this sort of thing.
I detect the hand of Prime Minister Blair in this - reluctant to give up his free holidays in Egypt.
In Western political thought it is axiomatic, as Charles said, that:
ergo, no civilised society is to be found in the Muslim world.
Certiorari:
Whomever Charles was speaking for, it is simply shameful that among his words concerning the protection of the rights of minorities nothing specific was said about the rights of non-Moslems in lands annexed by Islam. Mention of the state of Copts in Egypt, for instance, would have been appropos during the Prince's impassioned speech.
The words may not have been his specifically, but his passion belies his sympathies.
Certain posters here object to the epithet "Abrahamic faith" for Islam. Technically, it is correct, and the correctness reveals one of the problems of Islam. Mohammed (and/or later Muslims mythologizing in his name) constructed a mythology whereby they (in their minds) theologically conquered Israel and took its soteriological significance away from Jews and Christians. Just as Christians developed a mythology whereby they, as opposed to Jews, became the true inheritors of the promise of Israel, so Mohammed (and/or later Muslims mythologizing in his name) developed a mythology to take that privilege away from both Christians and Jews. While there is a theological resemblance between Islam and Christianity in terms of this co-option of Israel, there are also important differences, among which is that while Christianity maintained and refined the classically philosophical distinction between Gnosis and Noesis -- rejecting the former, pursuing the latter --, Islam did the reverse and became the most popular, influential, powerful, and longest-lasting Gnostic Empire in history.
If any British readers can get me a copy of Camilla in a veil, I would appreciate it. Want to add it to my PC folder of photos. Just let me know where it's at by email johnsobieski@hotmail.com.
Television;
Excellent and intelligent comments!
television,
Please post here more often, your comments are exactly more of the type we need, rational and insightful. I wholeheartedly agree with your ultimate conclusion, I just differ in some of the minor details by which you reach it.
THis is the pits. Why doesn't he just help Camilla get into the pit and hand out the stones, because stoning is exactly what adulteresses get under sharia law. Why can't he see his hypocrisy?
Meanwhile, Prince Charles is getting royally slammed at the BBC Have Your Say
An overwhelmingly number of the comments lambast Charles for asking his subjects to be tolerant of the intolerant. Many have brought up the issue of the Afghani who converted to Christianity, as well as other past examples of Islamic "tolerance." The sentiments of the British public, and of other nationalities, are being made known through this forum, and this being al-BBCeera. The most reccommended post, so far:
I found a photo of Camilla in veil drag. Bonus - Charles in full drag with a Taliban (black) turban. Hot!
Mufti Charles with a Black Turban, Camilla in Veil Drag
Lili,
No doubt Charles sees the Islamic world through the lens the former British empire, when British elite, the nobility and aristocrats, walked amongst the Arab lands, the Muslims feigning deference to their British overlords. Through such lens, one can easily regard Islam as an exotic faith of the East. Unfortunately, the history of the 20th century, in which Islam had been relegated to a minority role in geopolitics, clouds the present perception of politicians and policy makers. One need only return to the 17th-19th centuries to see the true face of Islam that has once again reared its ugly head.
Well, the BBC is back to censoring. The comment I just posted above (then with 88 reader recommendations) has been removed along with other highly reader recommended posts that were highly critical of Islamic intolerance. The top reader recommended post now shows only 56 recommendations, and the remaining posts are much milder in tone. Have Your Say, as long as we don't disagree with you.
Meanwhile, Prince Charles is getting royally slammed at the BBC Have Your Say
Thank you so much for the link, Lisa. Very heartening.
Here is the public having its say for once and by golly is it telling it how it is. Wonderful!
I suspect the BBC hoped for opinions that were the reverse of these and is now getting badly burnt.
When I originally clicked the link, the opinion you quote was at the top of the "most recommended" with 88 votes. However, I just refreshed the page and it, and many other high-scoring post, had just vanished. Nothing scoring higher than 56 recommendations now. However, the whole of the first page of posts highly-recommended by other memebers of the public are still strongly negative towards Islam.
The BBC is obviously censoring, as highly popular posts are vanishing, but the message from the public is clear.
Thanks odin and Lisa. Lisa, what minor details do you disagree with?
In my experience the BBC will keep posts which criticism Islam just long enough to generate arguement. As soon as they get enough recommendations (and 50+ is about the limit)they cease to be a minority opinion and thus they get the chop.
Was any of the deleted posts from a contributor called dhimmi dhimmi by any chance? He had quite a lot to say about BBC's pro Islam stance on the BBC accountability thread last week.
Television,
Really minor points. Soteriological is inapplicable to Judaism, and traditional Christian sects, as oppossed to evangelicals, do not teach co-option of Israel as their own.
Some time ago, I endeavored to read the Koran and the Books of Moses side by side, and distinction between the gnosis of the Koran and the noesis of the Books of Moses becomes abundantly clear, as the Koran merely repeats much of Mosaic law. While Mosaic law can seem harsh at times, from just reading a single verse, in context it had a reason, and reason tempers justice. Mosaic law set up a system of analysis of laws and judges to determine the applicability of the law to the facts of the offense. Mohammed looked upon Mosaic law as absolutist, and let everyone from this divine revelation act as Allah's personal district attorney, judge and executioner.
I used this example yesterday in the thread on Britian becoming an Islamic banking center. Whereas any interest charged on money lent in Sharia is usury and forbidden, the verses from Exodus and Leviticus regarding usury, from which Mohammed obtained this idea, did not ban interst but only excessive interest charged to the poor, those least likely to timely repay a loan. The God of Moses was most concerned about the poor not being taken advantage of, and forfeiting everything through default on usurious loans. Yet the God of Moses knew of the time value of money millenia before Adam Smith, the Miracle of the Bible, to turn a common Islamic claim.
On a lighter note, I now know why I do not like wearing cotton-polyester blends. The answer is in Leviticus 19:19.
in my opinion prince charlse is either a muslim or he loves islam a lot decide for yourselfs look at this site http://www.sunnah.org/nl/v0104/prince.htm of prince charlse watering a tree to symbolize the spread of islam in the UK
Chuck makes George Bernard Shaw's quip most apt:
"Royalty is an hereditary disease."
I would bestow one more title on Chuck.
U.P. (Unprincipled Prince).
May he now be known as UP-Chuck.
(I guess his own moral failings that played out in the public press for decades, shame him not a quid, especially since he drags his adulturess-cum-'wife' on these Tours of Undigested Folly.)
I find it utterly obnoxious of this weasel (or is it ermine in his tax bracket?) to criticise others- like the Danish cartoonists (who merely caricatured a pedophile warlord's effect on his current crop of blind followers)- when his own embarassing career is enough to make a normally decent man retire to a monastery, -or at least hide away with Camilla in some remote, moldy estate and zip his flappy yap. I think the genetics of carrots should be his passion. Not global political affairs.
He is like an Evelyn Waugh titled dolt in a 1930's novel about the dangers of letting royals speak on anything weightier balloon races.
"...weighter than balloon races..." of course.
Certiorari,
Surely Charles has some choice in what he says. Other diplomats of other countries have been, well, more diplomatic. What Charles is uttering amounts to grovelling, submission. That's bad diplomacy. And perhaps a lot of public criticism of Charles' comments will have some impact on the Foreign and Commonwealth office (or is it "offices"?). I do believe it is quite bad for any western figure to be perceived as validating in any way the out-of-control fury over the cartoons. In any case, those offices must answer to the public, correct?
Television,
Technically you are right, but...any two-bit leader of a cult can claim some connection to Judeo-Christian tradition, making it instantly Abrahamic. One of the difficulties with the use of the Abrahamic term, as it is often used in let's-kiss-and-make-it-all-better speeches of this type (i.e., Charles'), is that it implies a kinship, a kind of mutual acceptance among the three religions. But what kind of kinship is it according to Islam? Jews and Christians must accept Mohammad's version of events, they must believe that he is a prophet, and they must accept Islam (i.e., they must convert to Islam) or else face execution or subjugation (dhimmitude or slavery) in accordance with the Koran (9:29). It is also clear from an overall reading of the Koran that Mohammad is of the view that the Jews and Christians corrupted the scriptures. Their faith, whether pure Abrahamic or the botched versions, is unacceptable to Islam. [Also see the above citations in my previous post from the Ayesha Ahmed article]. Allah accepts only Islam (3:85), not Master Card, not American Express, and not even Christian and Jewish versions of their Abrahamic faith. It has to be Islam's "Abrahamic"--nothing else. This is why the term Abrahamic is misleading in the context in which Charles used it.
A few of the key differences between Islam and Judaism and Christianity worth reviewing:
Islam's goal is to conquer the whole world, by force if necessary (Sura 9, 9:33, 48:28, 61:9; also see several Hadith and statements from the Sira that confirm this policy). Muslims are ordered to fight until all religion is for Allah. Neither Christianity nor Judaism have this feature.
In Islam, apostates must be executed (i.e., actually killed by believers; this is implied in the Koran and stated explicitly in the Hadith and Sira). The Bible itself does not have such a law.
The Koran contains a verse authorizing wife-beating (4:34). There is no such verse in the Old Testament or New (there are bad verses there, of course, but not wife-beating).
Allah does not accept the good works of the non-Muslims; they are going to hell anyway. The Bible allows some leeway and room for interpretation (and of course room for disagreement) on this issue.
For what it's worth, here's one case where Mohammad distinguished his mission from that of his predecessors:
Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 7, Number 331:
Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah:
The Prophet said, "I have been given five things which were not given to any one else before me.
1. Allah made me victorious by awe, (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month's journey.
2. The earth has been made for me (and for my followers) a place for praying and a thing to perform Tayammum, therefore anyone of my followers can pray wherever the time of a prayer is due.
3. The booty has been made Halal (lawful) for me yet it was not lawful for anyone else before me.
4. I have been given the right of intercession (on the Day of Resurrection).
5. Every Prophet used to be sent to his nation only but I have been sent to all mankind.
Archimedes, I agree there are difficulties with the Abrahamic term; but not all terms necessitate rosy positives -- they may embrace thorny problems and still be accurate.
"One of the difficulties with the use of the Abrahamic term... is that it implies a kinship, a kind of mutual acceptance among the three religions."
It would imply this only to people who think that relation necessarily entails mutual acceptance. There are many people like that, but that's their problem, I think.
"It is also clear from an overall reading of the Koran that Mohammad is of the view that the Jews and Christians corrupted the scriptures."
That's one of the main Gnostic features of Islam, their conviction that they hold a key to the True Knowledge that was lost and corrupted for ages and now (or once upon a time, in the 7th century) has been delivered, in perfect condition, only to them.
"A few of the key differences between Islam and Judaism and Christianity worth reviewing:
Islam's goal is to conquer the whole world..."
The Christian eschatology also implied this, insofar as the entire Ecumene (= world) had to be evangelized before the Last Days, at which time the wheat (those who had accepted the Gospel) would be violently and apocalyptically separated from the chaff (those who had rejected the Gospel). What distinguishes Christianity from Islam is that Christianity retained enough contact with rationality to be able to weather the mysterious recalcitrance of the world to ending eschatologically, as one century led to another. This rationality, in turn, eventually evolved to dissolve the synthesis of Christendom and from that the imago of modernity emerged. The genius of the imago of modernity is that it never stops molting, so to speak. Islam, on the other hand, was and has always been stuck with an eternal crystallization to live by, from which it can only derail and lapse, never progress. Every movement in Islam away from that original crystallization of True Knowledge is interpreted as a lapse, a failing, an apostasy, a succumbing to temptation from outside. For the last couple of centuries, Muslims have been lapsing into indolence, and especially in the last century, many have been relaxing into becoming Westernized. This combined with the fact that the Muslim world has been under the thumb of the Western world for a long time now, angers and galvanizes the Muslims who want to revive the True Knowledge and make it powerful again, since that Gnosis is inseparably connected in Islam with worldly power.
Television,
Thanks for that informative post. I second Lisa's compliments and look forward to learning more from you.
About conquering the whole world, the point of distinction is this (and it is a huge difference): Christians are not authorized in the Gospels to take it upon themselves to spread Christianity by force. They are merely told to spread the word. Christ will deliver the harsh penalties (or not) to any non-believers. That's the key difference. In Islam, Muslims themselves are authorized to use force if they are capable of doing so and if the offer of Islam is refused; this is "fighting in Allah's Cause," and that Cause (or goal) is to keep fighting until there is no more disbelief, and this is to be carried out until the Last Day.
Television,
"Archimedes, I agree there are difficulties with the Abrahamic term; but not all terms necessitate rosy positives -- they may embrace thorny problems and still be accurate."
Right, but I was referring to Charles' usage and the context in which it was used (conciliatory-type speech reported on and then disseminated to the general public which has been fed some ideas about the alleged kinship between Islam and the other two), which does emphasize the positives. But I have no problem with the term in scholarly usage, where there is an understanding of the problems.
Archimedes (and others) -
It is, in fact, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (singular). That aside, having read all the postings here and followed all the links I have to say that I do now understand the reaction to His Royal Highness's speeches and behaviour in the Middle East. Yes, I agree: he, personally, certainly appears to be a mohammedan sympathiser to a greater degree than I had previously been aware of and, yes, that is unacceptable in our future King.
However, I have to say that His Royal Highness has very little, if any, control over that which he has to say on these tours. The Government writes his speeches in consultation with the civil servants in The Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The same applies to any other member of the Royal Family in similar situations - even Her Majesty The Queen.
In exactly the same way the Government organises the entire tour - its visits, its ceremonies, its dinners, its tree planting, its mosque visits, its University visits, the clothes that will be worn for any particular engagement (right down to the underwear, believe it or not), in short - everything. Each day of a tour is meticulously planned right down to exactly how many minutes will be planned for and allowed for toilet breaks - tough if one gets caught short.
That said, I deprecate the obvious enthusiasm that His Royal Highness is reported to have shown in delivering his speech. If it is true then it was definitely unnecessary. If the reports are false then they are just another example of the British Press's thirty year campaign against His Royal Highness. The lies that have been published about him are quite incredible and reflect extremely poorly on the profession of journalism.
However, it has to be said that he is just buying into the same mindset as many of our politicians and people. Vast numbers still believe that mohammedanism is a religion of peace and they still believe, also, that the members of this satanic cult are just like everyone else and they will settle down and everything will be fine. Many, many people have swallowed the tiny minority of extremists lie, hook, line and sinker. His Royal Highness, I regret to have to say, is probably only reflecting the views of the unthinking majority in the UK. That is why we must continue to support Mr. Spencer, and others, and try to spread the truth about mohammedanism before it is too late.
Despite all of that I remain a committed Royalist - as do many - and any attempt to overthrough the Monarchy, whether through Parliamentary legislation or by armed insurrection, will see me, and countless loyal others who have not bought into the ignorant PC crap that passes for education, knowledge and thought these days, out on the streets defending my Queen (or King) in the only way that I know how. Make no mistake, Royalists are not in a tiny minority in this country and if push comes to shove, but only if, we'll show you what we're made of, but more importantly, literally show any anti-Monarchist what s/he is made of. I took my oath to defend my Queen and Country when I served and I still stand by it.
Finally, I have never been rude about other peoples Heads of State or elected representatives or aristocracy. I have always strived to use the correct titles and forms of address when discussing them or their behaviour. I am saddened to see that the courtesy is not reciprocated and that many non-British people feel free to address the heir to throne, and British Government officials, in the most discourteous way they can. It is neither clever nor funny: it is just plain bad manners.
Mr. Fitzgerald, despite his obviously strong feelings, managed to remain a courteous gentleman in his post (ten down from the top) and I feel that others should follow his lead - not just for British titles or job descriptions, but for every country's.
Certiorari: surely Charles has some control over his comments. I read recently that one of his ambitions, if he ever becomes king, is to change his title 'Defender of the Faith' to 'Defender of the Faiths'.
What 'faiths' could they be, I wonder. The UK has cause for worry if this man ever becomes king. His softness to Islam has been demonstrated in a hundred ways - and softness to Islam means the eventual demise of Britain since he will no doubt 'defend' Islam at the expense of Christianity.
Charles is in a position to know far more than the average British citizen (who is too lazy to research Islam and therefore takes the pro-Muslim propaganda of people like Charles as the truth)- yet he continues to believe obvious lies, such as 'Islam is a religion of peace'.
I hope Australia becomes a republic before this man ever succeeds to the throne.
Prince Charles: The Constantine of Islam?
by Ali Sina:
www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina51103.htm
For Camilla the burkha is truly a solution.
But Charlie is an idiot and eager to prove it. Despicable, does he really have to suck up to the Mohammedans?
Archimedes,
I think you're correct about the difference between Islam and Christianity concerning the military aspect of eschatology.
"Christ will deliver the harsh penalties (or not) to any non-believers."
There's no "or not" about it; the wages of impenitent sin, in Christianity, will be everlasting punishment.
Aside from that point, I think you're right about the other points, though I would be stronger and more precise about it: in Islam, the primal evil principle that all religions (and, I might add, non-religious individuals) have to wrestle with in one way or another has been immanentized in the form of all other non-Muslims (some being worse than others) who try to thwart and corrupt Islam, while the highest goal in Islam is to militarily and as collectively as possible fight this evil principle in order to usher in the eschaton. In Christianity, while there are tendencies to interpret the primal evil principle in terms of intra-cosmic "principalities and powers", for the most part this misplaced concreteness and quasi-politicization has been diluted by rationality and appropriately mystical sensibilities: the original mystery of evil is preserved with more fidelity, lessening its liability to be exploited for irrational reasons (Christianity is not immune from irrational exploitation of the concept of evil, but only as a failing from its founding principles, not, as in Islam, as a roaring institutionalization blessed by immutable holy scriptures).
As for the Prince and his usage, I would concur that to him, apparently relation is necessarily rosy, and he would embrace Cain himself and give him all the benefits of British welfare if he could.
The Prince said: "The recent ghastly strife and anger over the Danish cartoons shows the danger that comes of our failure to listen and to respect what is precious and sacred to others.
I wish the Prince would honour what I hold sacred and shove his head so far up his arse we could all see what is really comming out of his mouth.
When he becomes king, Australia will become a Republic (and no- I'm not a republicianist)
Lisa,
I don't think soteriology is inapplicable to Judaism; it might be more muted and leavened with a good deal of relaxation into the rhythms of cosmic existence, but it's still there in the form of waiting for a Messiah and a return to Paradise, the way that God intended humans to live. Just because Jews are wise enough not to wait too impatiently or fanatically for their Messiah doesn't mean they don't.
You say that traditional Christian sects, as opposed to evangelicals, do not teach co-option of Israel as their own. I'm not sure what you mean by Israel: I mean Israel as a symbolism of God's original covenant with mankind, explicitly parochial and tribal at the beginning, but implicitly and increasingly universal. All orthodox Christianities believe that Israel in this sense is at the core of the Gospel and that Judaism represents a wrong branch off of that tree or, at best, an incompletely flowering branch, while that Christianity represents the best branch. In addition, I think that philosophically speaking, Christianity represents (certain flaws aside) a clearer and further differentiation of Israel (and ipso facto of eschatology in general) than does Judaism.
Certiorari,
I have to agree with you on this one. When he makes an international trip, the Prince is a representative of the nation and must have his official comments "vetted" by the Foriegn Office which is controlled by the minions of Tony Blair.
When the prince speaks off the record and expresses his own opinions, they are usually very different than his "official" words and often quite laudable. For example, his opposition to the ugliness of modern architecture and his dislike for the Chinese Communists.
Let's point the finger at the policy makers not the messenger. It is Blair and company that deserve our disgust, not the royals.
Certiorari wrote: "Despite all of that I remain a committed Royalist - as do many.... ....I took my oath to defend my Queen and Country when I served and I still stand by it."
I'm sorry to say this Certiorari, but here you almost sound like an Islamic scholar who is determined to 'defend' Islam no matter what it takes. The monarchy is (on paper) an institution but to many of it's supporters it seems to be more like a religion...
"I have never been rude about other peoples Heads of State or elected representatives or aristocracy.... ....It is neither clever nor funny: it is just plain bad manners."
Well, there's a fine line between being rude and then calling a spade a spade. Sometimes the latter is percieved to be the former. We Danes are quite straightforward and that is one of the reasons why we have had the recent 'cartoon-troubles' with the muslim world, that's just our mentality. I'm not going to call a member of a royal family "His/Her Highness" as I think that they are not 'higher' than anyone else and that such titles are totally obsolete, bordering the ridicoulous. They originate from a period in time where peopel thought that Kings/Queens where chosen by God to be rulers and as such deserved a quasi-divine respect/worship. Today we know better(?). I don't live my life like it's a movie about the 17th. century.
Anyone want to make a guess on the Muslim name Prince Charles adopts once his conversion is official? How about Abdulla Doofus Bin Useless.
I sincerely hope it happens, then Australia can finally become a republic, because no one in their right mind will accept him as the head of state here. Besides, his eyes are just a bit too close together for my liking.
BBC Have Your Say has chopped a few more critical of Islam comments since last night and has not published any new comments. Do they take us for idiots?
Figureheads/shmigerheads. It's way past the time when the monarchy of Great Britain has been useful. It's time for the people of this once great nation to stand up and say, thanks for your many generations but we're fine governing ourselves now.
It's time for the people to elect true patriots of their land, not the Nazi/Islamic Brotherhood "tuchus lechers" (tush kissers) like Galloway and Livingstone. How embarrassing it is to have a man who may be king someday be a closet Islamic brotherhood member and to speak harshly against a true ally of his country.
Like the BBC's reputation, the royals' reputation has diminished somewhat.
But then again, Chuck did take shahadah prior to Sept. 11th. Surprised an Iman did not marry him and his "duchess".
In reading the comments, I applaud Archimedes' novelette. He hit it right on:
Greater tolerance--LOL! What about religions
other than those three? What about atheists
and agnostics? Ho ho! Charles the bigot! We
can’t have that! And are you sure Islam is
an Abrahamic faith? Because Mohammad said so,
and ripped off a bunch of material from the
Mishna and Talmud, and then modified it to
fit his imperialistic totalitarian objectives
(or, indeed, whatever suited his fancy in the
moment)? Allow me to quote from an article
about Islamic sensitivity and tolerance by
Ayesha Ahmed from faithfreedom.org:
[“Gods of all other religions shall be
the fuel of Hell (21:98-100)
All Gods except Allah are created, dead
andfalse, they all lead to hell (16:20-21,
25:17-19, 29:41-42, 37:22-25)
Jesus was a Muslim and a slave/servant of
Allah, and not his son (3:52, 4:171-172,
4:172, 5:115-117, 5:111-112)
Crucification of Jesus is a lie (4:157)
Doctrine of trinity is infidelity and
disbelief, a painful doom awaits for those
disbelievers who believe in trinity (5:73)
Christians corrupted the true message
(5:14, 15)
People of the book (Jews and Christians)
are evil doers, some of whom were converted
into apes and swines for their disbelief
(5:59-60)
Jews say Ezra is son of God and Christians
say Jesus is son of God, they are liars and
perverts, May Allah destroy them (9:30)
Mohammed was sent by Allah as a gift to
Christians to correct their corruption and
misunderstanding of true religion Islam
(57:28, 4:47)]”
…and the Koran says May Muslims destroy them
or else subjugate them (9:29).
For starters to believe in a book filled with lies is in itself misleading. The KKK state many things that are inaccurate and only those who have hate in their souls will follow such a concept. Should we assume the same thing?
If the Koran would ever be rewritten perhaps via a Bahai standpoint mixing in Rumi's poetry, then perhaps it would be a book of substance and accuracies and like the books of Jews, Christians and even non-Abrahamic faiths it would have what it does not have: A beginning, middle and end, as well a book of hope and spirit. NOT a book that has become a manual of murder.
"I'm not going to call a member of a royal family "His/Her Highness" -odin, king of gods
I have a good friend from Spain who was hit while riding his motorcycle many years ago by the Spanish King's motorcade. The king's limo hit him and injured him, but due to "security", the royal personage wasn't obligated to stop -- he proceeded to his publicly paid for home in his publicly paid for motorcade protected by his publicly paid for security detail and not doubt dined on publicly paid for feast cooked by publicly paid for chefs that evening. My friend thought himself lucky when he was later visited by the royal personage in the hospital. The "king" of spain deigned first to visit, and then sealed this particular minion's everlasting gratitude by providing (a no doubt publicly paid for) shiny new motocycle to replace the one the king had destroyed earlier in the week.
I couln't convince my friend that the "king" of Spain had nearly gotten away with murder, just because he was born a "king". If his motorcade was speeding at the behest of the "king", then the "king" was legally responsible to do far more than simply provide a new motorcycle. But through the relentless application of subtle and not so subtle reinforcements by "royals" and their royalist supporters and defenders, my friend was convinced that the "king" owed him nothing, and had bestowed a great honor by first visiting him in the hospital, and then "giving" him a new motorcycle! How utterly preposterous!
Anyone still claiming membership in the "royalty" club in this day and age deserves withering ridicule. There's a great affinity between the Windsors and those claiming "royal" lineages in the Arab Middle East. They help each other legitimize their respective "royal" rackets. This is as good an explanation as any as to why Charles delights in Islamic pandering -- such cultures are still immersed in ancient notions of hereditary privilege, and the inane prerogatives of "Kings". When he fawns all over Islam, both with his actions and his words, he's reinforcing his own credentials as God's gerent on earth in England. It's the identical fantasy Mullahs or the "Caliph" of Islam would promulgate in order to reinforce their "royal" God-sanctioned non-democratic and therefore illegitimate claims to power.
Use of the name "Saudi" denotes a single family's claim of ownership for the entire Arabian peninsula (including all possessions therein AND it's human occupants, by the way) due to superceded notions of royal "prerogatives."
All such persons relentlessly cling to the royal racket because it's such a sweet gig. Why not? "Royals" are usually exempt from paying taxes, situated to dip their bejewelled hands into the public coffers to finance their fairy tale lifestyles, their fabulous residences, and all that looted antique decor.
The ends of the Royal Russian, French, German, British, (and Spanish) Empires of the 19th and 20th centuries should have been the ends of their respective "royal" families as well. Kings queens princelings and all the attendant rigamarole are a throwback to a primitive, highly unfair, and anti-democratic system which rode rough shod over humanity for far too long.
Granny,
its worse than that. The comment that I cut and pasted above was the most recommended with 88 votes at the time, then a few minutes later it and all other highly recommended posts with recommendations above the low 50's disappeared. I started to read all of the post in descending order of recommendation and, lo and behold, the previously highest rated posting was now only recognized by a handful of posters. About an hour or so later, this same post crawled back to the fifth most recommended with about 52-56 votes, then once again got relegated to the also rans.
The BBC is playing games, they might not call it censorship, but it is data manipulation of popular sentiment so that it conforms to their manipulation of the news.
Certiorari,
Thanks for answering my question.
In case there was any misunderstanding, I should add that I do not literally believe that Charles is a bigot; rather I was partly lampooning the trigger-happy usage of this term (also "racism") in our politically-correct times. (That said, the question still remains as to why apologists of or for Islam continue with the "one-big-happy-family" line which happens to exclude about half of the world's population which are not members of the 'Abrahamic' faiths. We need to keep asking this question). My criticisms of Charles are focussed on his stance viz Islam. I really have no major problems with Charles and Camilla personally.
Public criticism on this issue should (one hopes) have an impact at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, one way or another, if they are responsible for his speeches.
------------------------------
Television,
I said: "Christ will deliver the harsh penalties (or not) to any non-believers."
You said "There's no "or not" about it; the wages of impenitent sin, in Christianity, will be everlasting punishment."
My apologies for the ambiguity. The parenthetical "or not" in that case indicated that it would be Christ's decision as to what to do with the disbelievers (punish them or not). The Gospels are contradictory on the issue of whether faith is more important than good works, or vice versa. If good works are more important, then perhaps Christ may not punish those disbelievers who do what are deemed to be good works. I think the weight of the Bible favours the idea that faith is more important, but it is not conclusive due to contradictory statements.
You state: "in Islam, the primal evil principle that all religions (and, I might add, non-religious individuals) have to wrestle with in one way or another has been immanentized in the form of all other non-Muslims"
Indeed, the demonization of non-Muslims with the explicit policies for dealing with them constitute major problems with Islam. Here's some that I have on file:
What believers [Muslims] should know about disbelievers [non-Muslims] and how they should regard/ act toward them:
28:86 never help them,
9:23 sever family ties with those who value disbelief over belief (Islam),
58:22 On the Last Day, believers will not love family members who are disbelievers,
29:8, 31:14-15. Be kind/good to your parents, but do not obey them if they are unIslamic
3:118 don’t take them for friends
3:28 don’t take them for friends, unless merely superficially, while keeping to the final goal of Islam, as a temporary precaution (taqiyah)
4:139-140 do not choose disbelievers instead of believers for friends
4:144 don’t choose disbelievers instead of believers as friends
5:51 do not take Christians and Jews as protectors/guardians/allies
5:57 don’t take as friends/guardians those who mock or jest Islam
8:73 join together and separate yourselves from them, protect your religion from their corruption
60:1 do not take them for friends
60:13 don’t make friends with those who disbelieve in the (Islamic) Hereafter
53:29 shun them
58:5 humiliate them
4:63 oppose them and admonish them (verbally)
4:104. do not relent in pursuit of the enemy (the disbelievers)
66:9 strive hard against them and be stern with them
9:14 fight them and Allah will punish them by your hands, bringing them to disgrace
9:73-74 strive hard against the disbelievers and hypocrites and be harsh against them (using verbal and physical fighting)
9:123 fight the disbelievers near you and let them find harshness in you
66:9 strive hard against them and be stern with them
5:54 be stern/mighty against the disbelievers, but humble with believers
48:28-29 conquer them all, and act hard against them (al-kuffari; the disbelievers), but be merciful to believers
68:8-10. do not obey and do not compromise with them
76:24 do not obey them
33:48 don’t comply with them/ don’t obey them
25:52 don’t obey but fight them
4:101 disbelievers are an open enemy to you
60:4 it is exemplary to hate them forever unless they believe in Allah
3:56 they will be chastised in this world (and the next) by Allah
3:87-88 they are cursed by Allah, angels, and men
63:6 don’t pray for them, Allah will never forgive them (unless they convert to Islam)
31:7 give them tidings of a painful punishment/doom
45:7-8 give them tidings of a painful punishment/doom
84:24 announce to them a painful punishment/doom
Insults/Demonization of non-Muslims.
The Koran says that disbelievers (non-Muslims): are “worst of created beings” (98:6), are “miscreants” (2:99, 24:55), are the worst beasts in Allah’s sight (8:22, 8:55); (some Christians and/or Jews are) turned into “apes and/or pigs” (2:65-66, 5:58-60, 7:166); (idolaters are) unclean (9:28); “evil” is upon them (16:27), evil (2:91, 2:99); “wicked” (80:42, 9:125); the “wrong-doers” (42:45, 2:254, 5:45); evil-doers (42:44); evil-livers (5:59); they have no good in them (8:23); are “guilty” for disbelieving (45:31, 83:29); on the side of Satan and are fighting for him (4:76-77); of the party of Satan (58:19); Allah assigns them devils for protecting friends (7:27); they choose devils for protecting friends (7:30); are partisan against Allah (25:55); “enemy” and “perverted” (63:4); disgraced lives (22:9); hypocrites (4:61); have a “diseased heart” (2:10, 9:125); are ill (84:20); deaf, dumb, and blind, and have no sense (2:171); deaf and dumb and in darkness, Allah sends them astray (6:39); have no sense (5:103); a folk who do not understand (9:127); their fathers were unintelligent and had no knowledge or guidance (2:170, 5:104); are “a folk without intelligence”/ “most ignorant” (8:65, 6:111); losers who are deceived by Allah (2:6), and deceived by Satan (4:60); Allah cursed them for their unbelief (2:88-89), liars/they lie (2:10, 4:50, 9:42, 16:39, 16:105, 59:11) “losers” (5:53, 7:178-179); foolish and liars (7:66), liars and losers (58:18-19), in false pride and schism (38:2), among the lowest (58:20); the lowest of the low (95:4-6)
In reading those insults, keep the following points in mind:
-these insults apply to disbelievers because they are disbelievers (disbelief is the worst crime)
-the insults are assumed to be the words of Allah and are therefore true of disbelievers for all time, until the Last Day
-the disbelievers cannot do anything to improve Allah’s perception of them (He does not accept the good works of the disbelievers), except to believe in and obey Allah.
-the insulting adjectives refer to the inherent character traits of disbelievers
Too much reverence for European royals is silly. When they do their jobs (ie. looking out for our national interests) they can be a symbol of national pride. That's fine. But for the most part they're a useless bunch of pampered amoral leeches. Ditto albeeb & most politicians.
Many Brits would hope Charles is passed over for ascension. King Bill would be better all round. Wasn't Charles photo'd by some tabloid frolicking round the grounds of Buck. Pal. in full Mohummedan dress - robes, coffee filter et al? IIRC said he found it a great way to unwind or something. Screw that for a head of state. This was around the same time he eschewed the term "protector of the faith" for simply "protector of faith" - ie. even death cults.
Scientology might reasonably be described as a succesful, modern Gnostic faith; Islam is a distorted patchwork of whatever Mohammed felt was the leading thought on any particular matter - esoteric, Hermetic, Judaic etc... I was under the impression that the supplantation of Jesus for Isa was a nod to gnosticism perhaps because of its antisemitic leanings - either way it seems the two were seperate individuals representing different schools. Islam has aspects of gnosticism, but is most appropriately described as a Satanic death-cult. To call it anything more respectful is an udue concession - it's not some deep mystical, transendant sect of Judeochristianity. It's a simple-minded sacrificial cult... and the most potent offering is the flesh of infidels.
Jsla wrote" "The ends of the Royal Russian, French, German, British, (and Spanish) Empires of the 19th and 20th centuries should have been the ends of their respective "royal" families as well. Kings queens princelings and all the attendant rigamarole are a throwback to a primitive, highly unfair, and anti-democratic system which rode rough shod over humanity for far too long"
Actually the Imperial Family of Russia was overthrown and the brief Russian democracy led directly to the Bolshevik totalitarian regime. The destruction of Germany's monarchy led to the Weimar democracy which soon elected the Nazis. The overthrow of the French monarchy led directly to the mass-murder of Robespierre and the Terror.
Sorry, but I have to completely reject the modern cult of democracy that the neo-Cons want to impose on the world. Democracy is one of the most corrupt and self-destructive political systems possible. Look at what happened when Palestine, Algeria, Turkey, Bonia, Kosovo, and Chechnya had democratic elections: the lowest Islamist characters were swept into power. Right now, the only institution preventing an Hamas style takeover of Jordan is the Hashemite monarchy.
Between a traditional monarchy that wants to preserve the culture and pass it on to dynastic heirs and elected demagogues who only care about winning the next election, I'll take monarchy any time.
Provoslavni -
Whilst agreeing with all of your posting I think I would qualify your final paragraph by adding the word constitutional before the word monarchy. The current Government of the UK seems to be intent on destroying the carefully built checks and balances that our constitutional monarchists worked so hard to put in place over several centuries; worse, they do not appear to offer much to put in their place.
Archimedes -
Thank-you for the clarification. I understand, now, your points. Yes, I, too, hope that public criticism will sway the future behaviour of the FCO and the Government, but I'm not holding my breath.
Hopefully they convert and Camilla starts wearing burkhas so we dont have to see her face anymore.
Archimedes & Certiorari,
Yes I should have written Constitutional Monarchy. This is an excellent check and balance against the demogoguery inherent in democracy by giving a (at least symbolic) link to to tradition.
Even when the balance is destroyed, a king can sometimes assert himself on behalf of tradition, such as when King Victor Emanuelle deposed Mussolini.
Absolute rule by any form of government is tyranny so a division of power is always neccesary. This is something lacking in all totalitarian systems whether Muslim, Communist, or Nazi. In these systems it doesn't matter if the leader is called a king, president, general secretary, emir, godfather, or grand poobah.
a lot of British posters have expressed their dissatisfaction with his royal highness, Carlos, el Principe de Gales, because of Charles' pro-Islamic leanings, or perhaps some stronger affinity. The Brits ought to take a look into the Royal Inst. of Int'l Affairs, if they want to discover one of the sources of pro-Islamic, pro-Arab propaganda in the UK.
Options, not necessary in order:
1. Jump over this clown and coronate William
2. Republic