So charles heres this and repetes it and beleives it

"He saw so clearly the importance of understanding between faiths, drawing out the central truth that “Religion does not teach us to harbour enmity amongst us.” This is why I find it so hard to believe those who assume some inevitable conflict between faiths and civilisations. The temptation is there. It always has been. But there is no obligation to succumb to it."

But his level of ignorance is so high he doesnt know the tenets of the religion of Islam.

The Most High has said: "O you who believe! Do not take your fathers and brothers as friends if they prefer disbelief over belief. Whoever amongst you befriends them, they are the wrongdoers" (9:23). He also said: "O You who believe, do not take My enemy and your enemy as friends and protectors. You show them love when they have rejected the truth that has come to you" (60:1).

The Prophet of Allah (S.A.W.) has said: "The faith of a believer is never complete until his love is for Allah's sake and his hatred is for Allah's sake". And he also said: "Love for Allah and love for His enemy can never co-exist in the heart of a believer".

Traditions of this genre are innumerable. Reason in itself is enough proof that Allah, Glory be to Him, has made believers love faith and adorned it in their hearts. He has made them hate disbelief, corruption and disobedience. For a man may hate his son or his father or his brother for his opposition to the truth and his swaying back and forth to the path of Satan; and he may love a stranger to whom he has no connection, except the brotherhood of Islam.

For all of this, it is incumbent that our love, affection and friendship be to those whom Allah has commanded us to love, just as it is necessary that our animosity, hatred and dissociation be from those whom Allah, Glory be to Him, has ordered us to dissociate from.

As a result of this, our affection is for 'Ali and the Imams from his progeny, even though there was no preceding love for them; [this is] because the Qur'an, sunna, history and reason have left us no doubt regarding them.
http://www.balagh.net/english/ahl_bayt/ask_those_who_know/06.htm

Posted by: KAOSKTRL at November 3, 2006 5:39 PM

So Charles hears this , Sorry.

Posted by: KAOSKTRL at November 3, 2006 5:40 PM

Your scruples does do you honor, Robert, but HRH didn't shine even by his own account of his speech, excerpt below:

Understanding is, of course, the foundation of the relationship between Pakistan and Britain today. We are linked by our history, by our communities, and by our common interests – in this region, and more broadly across the World. Ours is an enduring relationship, founded on mutual trust and respect. It is not just a relationship between leaders, but an unusually strong partnership between our peoples, strengthened by ties of trade, family and faith. It is also reinforced by the outstanding contribution made to the U.K. by those who have come from Pakistan to make their home with us; those who came all the way from Mirpur and Jhelum and Gujrat and who found themselves settling in Bradford, Leicester, Manchester and London. The support of the British public – led by those of Pakistani descent, through the remarkable effectiveness of Islamic Relief and other humanitarian agencies – together with the British Government in response to last year’s earthquake was nothing short of magnificent.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at November 3, 2006 5:51 PM

"A too literal reading of the texts, for instance, can so easily obscure the inner, symbolic meaning contained within them. As Jalaluddin Rumi put it so perceptively – “He who hears the inner voice within him has no need to listen to outside words.” Prince Charles, from the link.

So we can disregard everything in the Qur'an, ahadith, and sira ("outside words") that make us believe Islam has a horrible problem, as long as that teeny sweet "inner voice" inside each of us tells us everything is OK, right?

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at November 3, 2006 5:54 PM

From the speech elsewhere

"As it says in the Qu’ran – “Only they pay attention who have hearts; only they believe (or see signs) who have hearts.” Have you seen the signs? Will you trust in what your hearts are telling you?"

Posted by: Infidel Pride at November 3, 2006 6:02 PM

I guess it's not just Muslims who can believe outrageous lies and gang up on innocent people. Fancy that.

Posted by: Sylvia at November 3, 2006 6:04 PM

Quite a mistake, Robert. Better take your sources a bit more critical next time.

Posted by: DrWolffenstein at November 3, 2006 6:13 PM

Actions still speak louder than words. Didn't we see a photo of him dressed in muslim garb?

Posted by: freewoman at November 3, 2006 6:14 PM

"Personally, I have the greatest respect for the inner meaning of Islam and for that of the other great religions."

-- Prince Charles, excerpt from link

Which inner meaning is that, excactly? You mean a meaning disconnected from the actual sources? How does that differ from the outer meaning? What would the outer meaning be? How about the upper and lower meainings?

What dreck.

Posted by: Clive at November 3, 2006 6:16 PM

Well, I like his speech. Thank you for posting the link.

Prince Charles was addressing female university students and I think he was trying to reach out to them by reminding them of our commonality and of the possibility of peaceful co-existence. (I know, it isn't really possible.)

But maybe one of those women will be part of a movement to reform Islam in the future, who knows? Maybe one of them will be another Wafa Sultan.

Perhaps these educated young women will not be happy to stay at home dressed in a sack. Perhaps they will have a taste of freedom, including career and economic freedom, and perhaps they will follow a peaceful version of their religion. (I know, Islam is anything but peaceful.) But maybe they will start a sect of Islam known as "Just-the-first-few-peaceful-chapters-of-the-
Koran-followers" (or some such thing).

I wish someone would discover some unknown, previously undiscovered Koran writings in a cave somewhere that reveal that the bad stuff was really written by Mohammed's evil twin brother.

Posted by: Josephine at November 3, 2006 6:19 PM

"However, religion itself is not the problem – it is surely human misinterpretation of the sacred texts handed down to us that can lead to such appalling misunderstanding and hatred."

"I have the greatest respect for the inner meaning of Islam and for that of the other great religions."

"It is also reinforced by the outstanding contribution made to the U.K. by those who have come from Pakistan to make their home with us; those who came all the way from Mirpur and Jhelum and Gujrat and who found themselves settling in Bradford, Leicester, Manchester and London."

Based on the above quotes from HRH, I don't think that anybody should take back anything derogatory that they said about his highness.

Posted by: Pelayo at November 3, 2006 6:25 PM

It doesn't change the facts of his well documented fascination with islam.

Posted by: Carolyn2 at November 3, 2006 6:27 PM

Josephine...

"...was really written by Mohammeds evil twin brother".

His name was Shorty. He was never over 4' 10" tall..

Posted by: SCV at November 3, 2006 7:02 PM

"...was really written by Mohammeds evil twin brother".

His name was Shorty. He was never over 4' 10" tall..

SCV - Wait a minute, isn't he the president of Iran? What kind of time-travelling, evil-twin-freaks are they?

Posted by: Josephine at November 3, 2006 7:18 PM

Robert:

While its always appropriate to admit a mistake, as you have very honorably done, I hope you're not planning to lose any significant amount of sleep over this. I suspected the KUNA story from the beginning, but the thread you posted about it nonetheless served a worthwhile purpose because some of the things I learned while reading other comments and the links posted within them, such as Charles inordinately irenic relationship with Islam would have otherwise remained unknown to me.

KUNA's story is a shameless pack of lies, but the real story, although nothing like the satanic abomination that KUNA ran, is anything but inspiring. Charles does challenge his Muslim audience, but he also gives them, and Islam, far too much credit while he's at it. In this era post-911, post Madrid bombing, post-London tube attack, post-so-many-terrorist-atrocities nearly all of them carried out by Muslims in the name of their evil "religion", such talk should be blunt and tough, not cozy, warm and fuzzy. The slow and tentative awakening that we may be now witnessing in the British government of the menace that Islam contitutes to British society should have occurred long ago and with much greater force. In the earliest days of Islamic immigration to Britain and elsewhere in the West, one could readily understand the friendliness and optimism of liberal, multicultural attitudes toward the newcomers. After all, one would expect this of a society shaped by the Christian values of openness and welcoming to the other and the desire for the good of the other, and given the history of previous migrations to the West in modern times, one would have expected it to end happily, with the newcomers' assimliation. But this attitude, fomented by a demented Left (not to mention an irresponsible Right), and despite its patently self-evident failure, has lasted far too long and it would seem that Charles has done nothing to distance himself from this mistaken policy according to some of the information I recall reading on the other thread. On the contrary, it appears that he continues bending over backwards over the years to humour the Islamic world and British Muslims and this not only adds fuel to the scandalous, damaging and demoralizing rumours of his "conversion" to Islam, but certainly undermines his credibility and authority.

Given what is evidently known of Charles' history with Islam, its fair to say that he is far more to blame than you or anyone else posting at this sight if anyone, hearing an outrageous report such as KUNA's, believes it more readily than he should. Charles himself has given more than adequate reason for the public to expect the worst of him.

Posted by: templar at November 3, 2006 7:27 PM

What's he talking about with the "environmental crisis" that overwhelms our planet?

The man is more concerned about alleged global warming than about Europe dying and being overrun with Islam.

His kingdom is being usurped by Muslims. His people and his culture will erode away faster than the polar icecaps will melt.

His Royal Highness is still clueless.

Posted by: atheling at November 3, 2006 7:31 PM

Say, was the "meat" uncovered?

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at November 3, 2006 7:44 PM

Adam -- Muslim.
Moses- Muslim.
Jesus -- Muslim.
And so on down the line of everyone of signficance mentioned in Jewish or Christian lore.

And so, no doubt, if you look close enough, is every major figure in the history of, if not world, then of the Western world.
In the United States, this means Franklin, Washington, Jefferson, Adams, John Quincy Adams (those things the last two wrote about Islam? All stuff and nonsense, made up by those trying to blacken the name of the religion of the Peaceable Kingdom).

Lincoln was undoubtedly a Muslim -- just look at the Second Inaugural; it reeks with the atmospherics of Islam.

Islam means Davey Crockett and Daniel Boone and Molly Stark and James Whitcomb Riley and George M. Cohan and Tex Guinan and Al Capp and Adlai Stevenson and Gerard Piel and Martin Gardner and Peter De Vries and...oh, everyone, including Harry Golden and Stephen J. Wise and Bishop Sheen and Walter Reuther and the Lone Ranger and Porky Pig and Archie and Jughead and Alfred E. Neumann and Peggy Lee and Billie Holiday and Bunny Berigan and Bix Beiderbecke and...Your Entry Here.

Und so weiter.

Posted by: Hugh at November 3, 2006 8:20 PM

Too bad nobody can run against him for Prince of Wails, or King of the UK. We could use another war of the Roses.

Posted by: Infidel Pride

King Arthur must surely be rolling in his grave. Charlie is a traitor, by George!

Posted by: germaninamerica at November 3, 2006 8:33 PM

Based on the above quotes from HRH, I don't think that anybody should take back anything derogatory that they said about his highness.

Posted by: Pelayo

Well, I stand by my previous statement.

The thought of Charles on the throne makes me nauseous.
And I'm not too thrilled at the prospect of his becoming king either.

Posted by: Mike_W at November 3, 2006 9:46 PM

JOSEPHINE: "But maybe one of those women will be part of a movement to reform Islam in the future, who knows? Maybe one of them will be another Wafa Sultan."

RESPONSE: If so, it will be no thanks to the Prince of Wales and his obsequeous validation of Islam.

Posted by: Cornelius at November 3, 2006 11:27 PM

Hey everyone, this is OT but awhile ago there was an newspaper column (european, I believe) by a liberal that basically said he was wrong, and that he accepted the conservative view that Muslims is a very real danger. Can anyone give me a link to that article? I forget if it was mentioned here on dhimmi watch or on western resistance.

Posted by: asdfff at November 3, 2006 11:47 PM

"... it's not just Muslims who can believe outrageous lies and gang up on innocent people"

What "ganging up", Sylvia? I only read some people speaking their mind. Words. Nothing more. Part of the free exchange of ideas. Your skin needs a few more layers of thickness.

If you want "ganging up", try things like airplanes slamming into buildings, suicide bombers blowing up crowds in marketplaces and masked people carrying threatening placards calling for the execution of the enemies of their religion. Do you think any of the above posters have engaged in any of that? Charles is a public figure of enormous privelege, misleading his people from a protected position of power. Who's ganging up on who?

Posted by: templar at November 4, 2006 12:56 AM

Besides, Sylvia, who created the outrageous lie [sic] that generated this thread?

Posted by: templar at November 4, 2006 1:29 AM

But his level of ignorance is so high he doesnt know the tenets of the religion of Islam.

This site must have a lot of Americans posting because they don't know much protocol. The United Kingdom is a Constitutional Monarchy, that means Parliament is supreme; in Parliament The Executive is supreme.

The speeches of The Prince of Wales are often drafted but almost certainly subject to approval of The Foreign Office of The British Government. Prince Charles may say nothing on political matters of this type which is not approved or sanctioned by The British Government

Posted by: Voyager at November 4, 2006 1:34 AM

Robert,

I suggest you re-title this entry as "Closer, but still no Cigar".

Posted by: remote_control at November 4, 2006 1:55 AM

Hugh/

Bix Beiderbecke? Surely never! What do you take me for - a 'Wolverine'?

Nah. 'I Just Look at the World and Smile' whilst walking down 'A Lane in Spain', 'Singin' the Blues' beside a 'Slow River'. 'When' was that? Oh, once in 'Metropolis' or, perhaps, in 'Borneo', but anyway it's all in 'My Bouquet of Memories'. However, it's all 'Dancing Shadows' in the 'Dixie Dawn' for me, but I ain't 'Grieving'.

'Do I Hear You Saying I Love You'? No! But, 'You Took Advantage of Me' in 'C-O-N-S-T-A-N-T-I-N-O-P-L-E'; so I went back to 'My Ohio Home' to 'The Man I Love'.

'Oh! You Have No Idea'. I'm just a 'Sentimental Baby'.

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at November 4, 2006 2:24 AM

Hey, what happened to the Buddhism/Islam in Taxila thread - there was a ton of interesting history in that thread

Dominique

I am impressed by what you know about Taxila

Posted by: Infidel Pride at November 4, 2006 2:43 AM

Prince Charles may say nothing on political matters of this type which is not approved or sanctioned by The British Government
Posted by: Voyager

That is even more frigthening than if he came up with this dhimmidrivel all on his own..

Posted by: germaninamerica at November 4, 2006 2:59 AM

hay lieing was brought to a high art by the arabs
so we should not be surprized when they used a infidel dupe to pracitice Taqiyya which means deception in Arabic is the cornerstone of Muslim relations with Kafirs (non-Muslims). Muslims are encouraged to deceive Kafirs all along. The technique Taqiyya was consistently used in warfare by Muslims and it was this which gave them victory over non-Muslims in addition to their schizophrenic savagery

Posted by: islamakapigeaters at November 4, 2006 3:18 AM

Voyager:

Okay. So you're saying His Royal Highness is a puppet of Parliament.

That still doesn't make things better.

Posted by: atheling at November 4, 2006 4:35 AM

We all hear what we want and see what we're looking for. The Prince throws in a quote from the Qur'an and so the door is open to say 'follow teachings of Qur'an'.

People are stubborn, but I'm glad to read what the prince actually said. Thanks for providing the link. It's always good to go to the earliest source and this shows it once again.

Read the Prince's speech. Read the Qur'an itself. Read the Ahadith. Go to the original sources for understanding.

The Prince may not be as bad as we think. God save the Church of England

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at November 4, 2006 9:23 AM

It seems that KUNA is following the time-honored tradition that created the myth of Islamic tolerance and the idea that Islam is a religion of peace: when the facts don't suit you, make something up.

Also, when previous Koranic ayats didn't fit Mohammed's current situation, invoke the utterly stupid but self-serving concept of Naskh, and make a new and contradictory God-commandment up. Which is of course what ol' Mo did, dozens of times.

Ever wonder why Moslems bobble their heads? They're off balance.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at November 4, 2006 9:27 AM

He's still an elephant-eared dolt.

Posted by: alexon at November 4, 2006 10:53 AM

Consider the context of his speech. He was an invited guest. He was speaking as the representative of a country. Britain and Pakistan are not at war (not officially).

He's not the head of the army, riling up the troops to go out and kill some *insert racial epithet here*.

He was an honoured guest speaker at a women's university and in their country. He was suppposed to say pleasant things to them.

Imagine if Prince Charles started ranting at this audience and saying their religion sucks, they're all terrorists and killers, Mohammed was a murderous, child-raping pig-dog, etc.

At least he tried to get his message across, albeit in a soft way.

Posted by: Josephine at November 4, 2006 11:07 AM

oyager:

Okay. So you're saying His Royal Highness is a puppet of Parliament.

That still doesn't make things better.

No, I did not say that.

I said The Executive...............Parliament is The Legislature.............

Prince Charles like The Queen is subject to the Advice of Her Ministers especially when dealing with Foreign Affairs and is subject to The Foreign Office......................we have an Act of Settlement 1701 which defines the role of Monarch and Parliament just as Americans have a Constitution which stops the President from dismissing Congress

Posted by: Voyager at November 4, 2006 12:56 PM

"Hey, what happened to the Buddhism/Islam in Taxila thread - there was a ton of interesting history in that thread"

Indeed, where the hell did it go?
Google the relavent words and you'll find a cached copy of it with all the comments in tact.

Why was this one deleted?

Posted by: FallingProphet at November 4, 2006 2:10 PM

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/30/nchas30.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/10/30/ixportaltop.html

"The Prince of Wales will try to persuade George W Bush and Americans of the merits of Islam this week because he thinks the United States has been too intolerant of the religion since September 11.

The Prince, who leaves on Tuesday for an eight-day tour of the US, has voiced private concerns over America's "confrontational" approach to Muslim countries and its failure to appreciate Islam's strengths.

The Prince raised his concerns when he met senior Muslims in London in November 2001. The gathering took place just two months after the attacks on New York and Washington. "I find the language and rhetoric coming from America too confrontational," the Prince said, according to one leader at the meeting.

It is understood that Prince Charles did not - and does not - believe that the actions of 19 hijackers should tarnish the reputation of hundreds of millions of law-abiding Muslims around the world.

Khalid Mahmood, the Labour MP for Birmingham Perry Bar, was also at the meeting at St James's Palace. "His criticism of America was a general one of the Americans not having the appreciation we have for Islam and its culture," he said."

This was in January 2005. Come on, the man is a Muslim sympathizer, not much different from the Nazi appeasers in Britain of the 1930's.

He finds our language "too confrontational" after 9/11... yet has nothing to say about the rhetoric coming out of Iran? He wants us to "appreciate" Islam? Does he know what Sharia Law is about? When he addressed those women in Pakistan did he say anything about women's rights? No, he made inane remarks about the "overwhelming" dangers of environmental issues.

I understand some of the comments made about how he has no political power, and that he must use tact and prudence when addressing people, particularly those of foreign cultures. But I find it quite hypocritical that he uses this "softness" for those who need to hear the brutal truth, and uses hard criticism for those who have every right to defend themselves from violence. After reading a few posts on how rape victims are treated in Pakistan, I find Charles' vapid blatherings made there even more repellent. Better that he says nothing at all.

Posted by: atheling at November 4, 2006 5:27 PM

Infidel Pride & FallingProphet/

Forgive me. I may have caused the demise of the Taxila thread by straying too far away from the head post by Robert and blethering on about history and arguing with the two or three posters who obviously couldn't get their dates in order and who wanted to extrapolate my remarks about the archaeology of Taxila to cover all of India.

Mea culpa (probably). So my apologies all round. When I get the bit between my teeth about my subject I do tend to become somewhat loquacious, so to speak.

Dominic.

Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at November 4, 2006 9:59 PM

Templar, my point is that the commenters here seem to be as gullible and quick to hate as the Muslims they are supposedly so intellectually and morally superior to. If we realy are so much better than they are maybe we should be acting like it.

Posted by: Sylvia at November 4, 2006 11:22 PM

"the commenters here seem to be as gullible and quick to hate as the Muslims they are supposedly so intellectually and morally superior to. If we realy are so much better than they are maybe we should be acting like it"

Posted by Sylvia

Gullible, yes! But "quick to hate" - that's another story altogether. Maybe some, but I wouldn't generalize about this.

You make a persistent comparison between the posters on this site and the Jihadists they condemn, and this, with a handful of exceptions, is not an apt comparison at all. Granted Charles is no Jihadist, but he has willingly accepted the role at least of a "soft apologist" much of whose behaviour and comments over the years fit into, and symbolically inflame, a political culture that has provided cover for Islamic radicals to continue their aggressive agitations by weakening British society's recognition of what's going on in their country. It's true that, as some posting above point out, his words and actions are restricted, and to some extent he has a program imposed on him by his political overseers, but I know that constitutional heads of state and vice-regal officials needn't simply tow the party line blindly but can take the time and trouble to talk to the common people, tell the governing authorities what they hear from them, and use moral suasion to privately encourage the elected leadership and its executive branch to consider these things in the formulation of their policy. The late lieutenant governor of Alberta, Lois Hole, was one representative of the Crown who used her position this way.

Charles, that I know of, has never done this. To the contrary, not only does he appear to be following blindly the PC line of the current British government, but he seems to throw himself into that single role with gusto, to the extent of foolishly adopting the customs, mannerisms and dress of his Muslim hosts, and probably that of other groups foreign and exotic to British life, and this provides the optics of surrender and capitulation, which demoralize the West, and encourage the Muslims who want to see the West destroyed. Notwithstanding any policy of the British government, Charles has certain rights as well which, if he chose to exercise them, would allow him to decline participation in this bufoonery. But taking it up as enthusiastically as he does delivers a significant blow to the morale of British people, and others in the West, hoping to see some backbone from their leaders in the face of what they are convinced is a serious threat to their way of life and even their very lives. And for this, he DOES INDEED deserve condemnation!

I think you should consider the entirely justified indignation that many posters feel about all of this before making facile comparisons to Jihadists and other Islamic extremists.

Posted by: templar at November 5, 2006 4:51 PM

Josephine:

I don't think that Charles' speech is the only issue at stake in this thread. Yes, as you point out, he did say essentially the right thing, although, as I noted above, there were certain elements in his speech that would have better been left out.

What has so many posters here riled up is also an apparent pattern on Charles' part, quite persistent over the years, of seeming to adopt, in the name of some overly enthusiastic ecumenism, every exotic craze on the fringes of British society, thereby symbolically legitimizing them far more than should be done by the holder of an office that symbolizes the history and traditions of the nation. This makes him, and the nation he represents look weak and foolish, and understandably creates a cloud of suspicion over him, leading to the kind of easy misunderstanding that prompted the creation of this thread.

Either way, no one should be surprized, or particularly distressed, that Charles gets pilloried here as a result.

Posted by: templar at November 5, 2006 5:17 PM

templar - I see your point and I don't disagree with you. So often, when listening to the leaders of our countries -- whether elected or not -- it feels like "the emperor has no clothes".

We don't know what they really think and say in private and I hope with all my might that they aren't all as gullible as they sometimes seem (Prince Charles, Condi Rice, etc.).

Posted by: Josephine at November 5, 2006 7:14 PM

"I wish someone would discover some unknown, previously undiscovered Koran writings in a cave somewhere that reveal that the bad stuff was really written by Mohammed's evil twin brother"

Josephine:

You may find this interesting:

http://www.chiesa.espressonline.it/dettaglio.jsp?id=7025&eng=y.

Not the whole picture, as others have pointed out when I've posted this information before, but part of the puzzle.

Posted by: templar at November 5, 2006 9:48 PM

templar - Thank you. I will read the information.

Posted by: Josephine at November 5, 2006 11:36 PM