Prince Charles is, I regret to say, the best argument for a British Republic.

Posted by: LondonBorn&Bred at November 28, 2007 7:28 AM

Instead of acting like such a fool, he ought to be traveling to Sudan to help free the poor British teacher who was jailed because her 7 year old student named a teddy bear Mohammed.

Posted by: usapatriot at November 28, 2007 7:33 AM

"Defender of the Faith". What a joke. I've thought so ever since he expressed a desire to be a tampon.

Posted by: ImNoDhimmi at November 28, 2007 7:39 AM

Another wolf in sheep's clothings, and a stupid one at that.

He just might get OZ to become a republic also, not only the UK.

Posted by: Gramfan at November 28, 2007 7:41 AM

He said he would be "defender of the faiths" plural,,very telling,IMHO ImNoDhimmi.

Yep, the tampon thing was a dead-giveaway also.

Posted by: Gramfan at November 28, 2007 7:43 AM

Prince Charles - the man who would be king.

Prince Charles - the man who won't be king.

Posted by: Stephen Gash SIOE England at November 28, 2007 7:53 AM

Please don't ruin my image of Prince Charles!

Posted by: Shy Guy at November 28, 2007 8:01 AM

Gramfan -

Yes, I realize Chuck wants to change one of his many kingly titles to "Defender of Faiths" - to accomodate himself and his muslim cronies!

The many great kings and queens who came before him would be so ashamed.

Posted by: ImNoDhimmi at November 28, 2007 8:05 AM

Of all the existing Muslim sects, none evokes as much hopeful admiration on the part of non-Muslims as the contemplative and relatively tolerant Sufis. They softened the hard edges of legalistic Islam; many Sufi masters and disciples attempted to humanize Islam’s remote and implacable deity. Sufism’s vaunted tolerance may be due, in part, to its being a continuance in Islamic guise of older mystical traditions.

Sufism embodied a number of non-Islamic influences. Neo-Platonism, Gnosticism, Buddhism, and Hinduism provided Sufism with its philosophical foundations. Christian monasticism gave the Sufis a model for organization. Theosophical and pantheistic thought was incorporated into Sufi teachings. Christian teachings influenced Sufism to such an extent that many early Sufis were regarded by orthodox Muslims as crypto-Christians.

In addition, a long history of Sufi martyrs attests to the pressure brought to bear by the forces of orthodoxy.The history of Sufi persecution demolishes one other myth which passes as conventional wisdom; that being the contention that the official execution of heretics originated under Christianity. Sufi heretics were crucified by sultans before Christian heretics were burnt by popes; the first Sufi executed was Al-Hallaj in Baghdad in 922.

However, there is a dark side to the much vaunted Sufi tolerance and quietism. Many Sufi savants and sects eventually accommodated themselves to the implacable forces of orthodox Islam, thereby deflecting persecution. Some Sufi masters with their followers reconciled their mystical doctrines with those of orthodox Islam. Other Sufi sects went beyond simply conforming to theological orthodoxy; while Sufis have been generally pacific in contrast to all other Muslim factions, certain Sufi sects fully embraced and even exceeded the bellicosity characteristic of Islam in general.

Posted by: RBLA at November 28, 2007 8:16 AM

Chas. is hand in glove with the islamics. Now you know chas is from the monarchy - from the ruling class. You know that church/mosque are - have always been one and the same.

It seems there is a plan to undermine - destroy the Middle Class. I wonder why? Are we getting too uppety?Too educated and asking questions. Too aware of our God-given rights? And so are demanding these rights?

Posted by: allat at November 28, 2007 9:25 AM

Yep they are closet Muslims

Posted by: Elric66 at November 28, 2007 9:28 AM

Nothing wrong with mysticism, but--as a previous poster stated--some forms of Sufism do have a dark side. There have been Muslim jihadists, Muslim terrorists, etc. It would very heavily depend on which Sufi tariqa Charlie is talking about.

...I keep wondering, though: if he hates the West so much, why does he insist on living here? Surely he has the funds to relocate to a more appealing location--Saudi Arabia, perhaps?

Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 28, 2007 9:34 AM

...I meant Sufi jihadists and Sufi terrorists. Muslim ones have obviously existed. Sorry, haven't had my daily coffee yet.

Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 28, 2007 9:35 AM

The evidence against Charles is growing larger by the day. I don't contend with his admonition against Western deconstructionism -- this intellectual movement has systematically taken everything of inherent worth in the West and called it into question.

But I do contend with his assertion that the East has more to offer, inherently, than the rest. Remember, he's not refering to a 21st century Islamic poet and mystic, but a 13th century one. I would put up anything written in the Medieval period in Western Europe against anything written in the Islamic world for its entire history.

Maybe if he's so taken by 13th century poets, he should look to his home country first -- if there are still any records left of these writings after the English Reformation destroyed the Monasteries where they were kept.

And I also find it ironic that his comments regarding the "Defender of the Faiths" title is so remembered by everyone. Henry VIII got the title "Defender of the Faith" from the Pope after writing a treatise defending Catholicism against Martin Luther's antics. Of course, he kept the title once he broke with Rome.

Now a modern heretic is going to follow in the footsteps of his distant ancestor's (and heretic) deeds and give Glorious Albion to the Muslims.

Of course, if anyone could prove that Charles is a muslim, he would not be able to take the throne. Only an Anglican can be King (a nice little law passed to keep Catholics off the throne but might benefit us by keeping Charles the Mohammedan off the throne.)

Posted by: GuardianofPeaceandJustice at November 28, 2007 9:49 AM

I agree with RBLA. Just as with Science in Islam, whatever good existed in Sufism, existed despite Islam rather than because of it.

And many of the so-called Sufis fully embraced the doctrine of aggressive jihad, as shown in this article on Sufism:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/004940.php

Posted by: eoim at November 28, 2007 10:30 AM

Chas - what a vile creature! He doesn't even look human, but gives rise to the questions: "
Are there Aliens among us?"

Posted by: allat at November 28, 2007 10:46 AM

Why is that idiot allowed to travel to the ummah? Every time he comes back he's drooling over what he's seen there. His mom ought to spank him or something.

Or at least find a way to keep him from becoming king upon her death.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at November 28, 2007 11:05 AM

on becoming a US citizen i had to renounce my allegiance to the royal family and british government. boy it felt good!

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at November 28, 2007 11:09 AM

a sheep in sheep's clothing

Posted by: MP at November 28, 2007 11:36 AM

Yep. Someone oughta whirl his dervish.

Posted by: Miss_Anthrope at November 28, 2007 11:39 AM

He may not be able to become a tampon, but he proves that he's a douche bag with comments like this.

Weighed & found wanting.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at November 28, 2007 11:40 AM

An oldie but a goody, is Charles a moslem?
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/119

Posted by: interestinconundrum at November 28, 2007 11:42 AM

I have read a certain amount of the poetry of Rumi.
Like a lot of people I found a sense of spirituality therein but like a lot of people came to the conclusion that the ultimate source of this spirituality lay elsewhere.
Islam is like the moon, it may shed a certain light but it’s a mistake to think the moon is the origin of the light.
Nor is it acceptable to think that an imitation of Christianity is just as valid as genuine Christianity.
After all what is Muhammed’s most famous miracle….that he split the moon in half?

Mark Gordon at the website “Suicide of the West” had a very good posting on poets with inflated egos pretending to be prophets.
So here is a cut and paste……..hope Mr Gordon is OK with this.

Lampooning Khalil
November 15th, 2007
I meant to blog on this a while back but forgot. In this month’s edition of First Things, Wheaton College professor Alan Jacobs has a hilarious send-up of Khalil Gibran occasioned by publication of the Lebanese Christian “poet’s” Collected Works.
In college, there were two books nearly every vacuous freshman could be counted upon to carry in a conspicuous location: Friedrich Nietzsche’s “Thus Spake Zarathustra,” and Gibran’s “The Prophet.” It was like owning Dark Side of the Moon. Even if you hated Pink Floyd, everyone put the album in front of their record collection for everybody else to see. The difference is that while no college freshman actually read Nietzsche, we all consumed “The Prophet” with an embarrassing intensity. All these years later, most people I know would sooner confess to having enthusiastically sung along with “K.C. and the Sunshine Band” than admit to having read “The Prophet.” I, of course, will admit to both. And I’ll add that I owned a liesure suit and once got a permanent, giving me a halo of dirty blonde curls. Okay? Happy?
Anyway, back to Jacobs. His tongue-in-cheek encomium to Gibran is penned in the style of one of Gibran’s interminable, McKuenesque “poems.” You’ve got to read the whole thing, but here’s a taste:
O Book, O Collected Works of Kahlil Gibran,
Published by Everyman’s Library on a dark day,
I lift you from the Earth to which I recently flung you
When my wrath grew too mighty for me,
I lift you from the Earth,
Noticing once more your annoying heft,
And thanking God—though such thanks are sinful—
That Kahlil Gibran died in New York in 1931
At the age of forty-eight,
So that he could write no more words,
So that this Book would not be yet larger than it is.
(Mark Gordon)
http://www.suicideofthewest.com/

It has sometimes been said that Islam begins as an imitation of Christianity and ends as a nihilistic cult of violence.

Posted by: Odyessus at November 28, 2007 11:49 AM

I can't help but think British republicans are rubbing their hands with glee at the thought of Charles becoming king.

Posted by: johnb at November 28, 2007 12:09 PM

I hate to bring up religion, but it is flipping obvious.

People like to have goals, a purpose, a higher meaning.

The West has removed religion which means your goals are your own and selfish, your purpose is to make it through the day, and your meaning...well, you don't have one...you evolved from a mud puddle and you are just living, oh and by the way watch your carbon footprint because the earth does not want you here.

The East has religion, terrible but it is what they call it. The people are united behind it and it gives them purpose.

Prince Charles needs to learn the differance between Knowledge and Wisdom. He does not have the first and because he opens his mouth we know that he does not have the second.

Posted by: alaskan1000 at November 28, 2007 1:03 PM

I like both Gibran and Rumi, so I'm not sure what this Mark Gordon person is getting at. Oh well.

"while no college freshman actually read Nietzsche"

Speak for yourself.

"Chas - what a vile creature! He doesn't even look human, but gives rise to the questions: "
Are there Aliens among us?"

Apparently, the answer is yes. Keep your eyes peeled for the mothership.

Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 28, 2007 1:04 PM

Please God, keep the Queen in good health for many years.

Posted by: Celsius at November 28, 2007 1:19 PM

Alaskan, the West has not "removed" religion. The West has transformed it into a private personal spiritual communion with God. Believers have been forced to seek that which is axiomatic to religious conviction, discarding the side salad and fries. Most importantly, the Christian tenet "Love your enemy" is rapidly becoming the defining characteristic of western people.

That means we, as individuals, are required to follow our conscience and live a good life. It means we can no longer expect to get away with going through a liturgical checklist- stand up, say prayers - sing hymns -kneel down- shut up-genuflect- make signs of the cross in the air- go home and sin no more until next week....

The trouble with islam, and it is a fatal error, is that it's just a ritual. It encompasses no personal spirituality whatsoever. Its followers are the worshippers of political dogma. They are expressly forbidden to seek any individual discourse with the will of God. It is nothing more than an anthology of arbitrary rules from a bygone age, with no semblance of rationalism or intrinsic virtue. Islam is decidedly not personal, it is generic. They could run the whole outfit from a computer program on a website, or a telephone helpline. It is an administration, a political party, a criminal fraternity, a set of magic words and arcane prohibitions. If muslims had membership cards they would say "Do not fold this membership card", and nothing else. You could almost become a muslim by accident and never know you'd done it.

That thing isn't a religion, it's a dog and pony show.

And that bloke isn't a King, he's a wingnut with a face painted on the front. Some of us will never accept his accession to the throne. But most importantly, we need a man of integrity in Lambeth Palace, because the current ArchBishop is a class 1 category A doofus.

Posted by: Monty at November 28, 2007 1:38 PM

Bonnie Prince Charlie: East has what the West lacks

Yes, that would be reason and balls, the reason to realize we won't triumph over fanaticism with moderation, and the balls to do something about it before it's too late.

Posted by: RalphInfidel at November 28, 2007 2:09 PM

Charles, please give in to your islamic yearnings and put a burka on Camilla (woof woof)

Posted by: j_not_a at November 28, 2007 2:51 PM

"Charles, please give in to your islamic yearnings and put a burka on Camilla (woof woof)"

Yeah, please do. Her face alone is enough to ruin an appetite.

Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 28, 2007 3:12 PM

Everyone knows Charlie [not my Darling] Windsor Wimp hasn't much going between his Jumbo sized ears. However, to quote Gordon Brown-Charlie has indeed 'shared values'with Saudi Royals. All of ém
are parasites feeding off their countries,relics
of an ancestor who was either lucky in case of German Georges or murdered their way to power like
Al Saud-over half a million Arab men,women & children were horribly slaughtered by first Saudi
monarch. Like them Charles is an autocrat with 80
servants to do his bidding which include putting
toothpaste on the Royal toothbrush & moving his easel when Chuck wants to be artistic.
Had to laugh when read his comments about 'modern
values'[positively prissy] this from a guy who has
never done an honest day's work in his life! Only
pressing decisions Charlie has ever had to make is
who to bonk-his mistress or wife-or buy yet another estate...
One good thing about Rudd winning election in Australia is he will push for Oz to become a Republic.

Posted by: Morgane at November 28, 2007 4:11 PM

FYI:
http://mosquewatch.blogspot.com/2007/09/michael-savage-radical-islam.html

And here is the results of someone speaking the truth:
"OFFICEMAX DROPS MICHAEL SAVAGE ADS OVER ANTI-ISLAM BIAS (WASHINGTON, D.C., 11/15/2007) - The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) today announced that OfficeMax, a leading office products retailer, has joined a growing list of companies that have stopped advertising on Michael Savage's nationally-syndicated radio program because of the host's anti-Muslim views."

Please Call OfficeMax As Soon As Possible
www.actforamerica

Posted by: ElizaDoolittle at November 28, 2007 4:39 PM

Prince Charles embraces islam. It is interesting that many islamic countries, they stone adulterers.

Posted by: callmeinfidel at November 28, 2007 5:04 PM

I feel sorry for Queen Elizabeth.

Her son has been listening to, and hanging with, the wrong people, if he really believes that the springs of Western spirituality have run dry and will never flow again. Charlie boy - you are a misinformed and unobservant fool. People have declared Christendom to be dead, many times before. The reports of death have always been found to be grossly exaggerated.

Archbishop Williams, as spiritual adviser to the royal family, should give Charles a copy of Jacques Ellul, "Hope in an Age of Abandonment", or "Prayer and Modern Man". Or, Adrian Plass, "A Smile on the Face of God", the thoroughly Christian biography of a thoroughly orthodox and mystical old-fashioned Anglo-Catholic priest, Fr Philip Ilott. Fr Ilott used to sing in a church choir. Any church choirs in Islam, Charlie? Nope. Islam hates music. No 'Let the Bright Seraphim', or anything else much at all. Wake up, Charles.

And even while Charles stares hypnotised at the whirling dervishes and dares to pronounce the West spiritually dead, thousands of young Europeans - and African and Asian Christians, too - are joyously singing the Psalms and other Christian chants, in the Taize community, and participating in the eucharist and in ancient disciplines of Christian prayer. The monks of Solesmes are still singing, too.

Again, for forty years, the L'Abri community has been combining old-fashioned pilgrim hospitality with passionate and intelligent Christian apologetics, rescuing many a 'lost soul' from a dead-end 'spiritual journey'. It sounds as though Charles needs an invitation to visit, from the UK daughter house of L'Abri. (L'Abri, by the way, has 'got the number' of Islam. They are not bamboozled in the least).

Charles, who is 'into' things environmental, should visit the A Rocha people (who are all straight-down-the-line evangelical Christians). He will find Christians engaged in planting, healing and teaching; they find neglected, unregarded corners of creation and get to work to restore them.

Better still: Patrick Sookhdeo should arrange for Charles to meet, face to face, with the many Christians in Britain who have survived horrific persecution under Islam. With Muslim-background-believers, within Britain itself, who have to live in hiding because there are death threats against them. I don't know if it would help for this royal FOOL and TRAITOR to have his nose rubbed in the grim reality of what Islam does to anyone who tries to leave, and what it does to people of other faiths the minute it has the upper hand, but ...someone has got to try.

It's looking horribly as though Charles is to modern Britain, in the War Against the Jihad, as Edward VIII was to Britain in the 1930s. A traitor at the very highest level.

He had better remember what happened to another English king called Charles. I'm surprised the back of his neck is not starting to itch, already.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at November 28, 2007 5:05 PM

"People have declared Christendom to be dead, many times before. The reports of death have always been found to be grossly exaggerated."

I'm not a Christian, but I have to say I found the old graffiti to be quite amusing--

"God is dead. Nietzsche."
"Nietzsche is dead. God."

Posted by: RoobartSbunsar at November 28, 2007 5:12 PM

He wants to be 'defender of the faiths'- how do you defend the 'faiths?'

Our ancestors have faught against ONE faith and this turkey is in bed with them, unbelievable!

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at November 28, 2007 5:14 PM

Either Chas is a closet revert or a clownish brown-nosed dhimmwit having whirled his remaining brain cells into mush. How's this for poetic sufism, Chas?

Dr. Andrew Bostom on Sufism:

Below is what the renowned Sufi master al-Ghazali actually wrote about jihad war, and the treatment of the vanquished non-Muslim dhimmi peoples (from the Wagjiz, written in 1101 A.D.):

…one must go on jihad (i.e., warlike razzias or raids) at least once a year...one may use a catapult against them [non-Muslims] when they are in a fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may set fire to them and/or drown them...If a person of the Ahl al-Kitab [People of The Book – Jews and Christians, typically] is enslaved, his marriage is [automatically] revoked…One may cut down their trees...One must destroy their useless books. Jihadists may take as booty whatever they decide...they may steal as much food as they need...

…the dhimmi is obliged not to mention Allah or His Apostle…Jews, Christians, and Majians must pay the jizya [poll tax on non-Muslims]…on offering up the jizya, the dhimmi must hang his head while the official takes hold of his beard and hits [the dhimmi] on the protruberant bone beneath his ear [i.e., the mandible]… They are not permitted to ostentatiously display their wine or church bells…their houses may not be higher than the Muslim’s, no matter how low that is. The dhimmi may not ride an elegant horse or mule; he may ride a donkey only if the saddle[-work] is of wood. He may not walk on the good part of the road. They [the dhimmis] have to wear [an identifying] patch [on their clothing], even women, and even in the [public] baths…[dhimmis] must hold their tongue…. 4 (Emphasis added.)

Moreover, Al Ghazali’s views regarding non-Muslim dhimmis – which were typical of the prevailing written opinions of Muslim theologians and jurists during the Abbasid-Baghdadian Caliphate – resulted in tangible acts of dhimmi persecution, as recorded, for example, in this contemporary chronicle from Baghdad by Obadyah the Proselyte, in 1100 A.D.:

…the Caliph of Baghdad, al-Muqtadi [1075-1094], had given power to his vizier, Abu Shuja… [who] imposed that each male Jew should wear a yellow badge on his headgear. This was one distinctive sign on the head and the other was on the neck- a piece of lead of the weight of a silver dinar hanging round the neck of every Jew and inscribed with the word dhimmi to signify that the Jew had to pay poll-tax. Jews also had to wear girdles round their wastes. Abu Shuja further imposed two signs on Jewish women. They had to wear a black and a red shoe, and each woman had to have a small brass bell on her neck or shoe, which would tinkle and thus announce the separation of Jewish from Gentile [Muslim] women. He assigned cruel Muslim men to spy upon Jewish women, in order to oppress them with all kinds of curses, humiliation, and spite. The Gentile population used to mock all the Jews, and the mob and their children used to beat up the Jews in all the streets of Baghdad…When a Jew died, who had not paid up the poll-tax [jizya] to the full and was in debt for a small or large amount, the Gentiles did not permit burial until the poll-tax was paid. If the deceased left nothing of value, the Gentiles demanded that other Jews should, with their own money, meet the debt owed by the deceased in poll-tax; otherwise they [threatened] they would burn the body.5

Simply put, the views of the much lionized Al-Ghazali are identical to those of countless classical and contemporary Muslim theologians

Posted by: miira at November 28, 2007 5:21 PM

Has Charles ever been anything but a FOOL? Poor England. They have no hope.

Posted by: CLL1709 at November 28, 2007 6:52 PM

ElizaDoolittle

we the people no longer run the USA.

corporate america does.

as glenn beck said a few days ago...we will soon have to march on washington with flaming torches.

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at November 28, 2007 7:06 PM

A Defender of the Faith who couldn't even keep his own vows of marriage. And having a nasty scheming wife did not help his case at all. Charles and Diana, two conmen made for each other. No wonder he's looking to the fraudulent Mohammedan cult, where his kind could shag four wives while giving middlebrow lectures on architecture and austere living.

Posted by: ivan at November 28, 2007 9:12 PM

Monty: On your comment about the West and religion. Thank you. I couldn't have said it better.

Posted by: allat at November 28, 2007 11:01 PM

Monty: On your comment about the West and religion. Thank you. I couldn't have said it better.

Posted by: allat at November 28, 2007 11:01 PM

on becoming a US citizen i had to renounce my allegiance to the royal family and british government. boy it felt good!

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at November 28, 2007 11:09 AM

Why did I think you were German?

Posted by: Susanp at November 28, 2007 11:31 PM

Message to our "Bonnie Prince:"

Perhaps you are right. But the real issue is why would we want what the 'east' supposedly "has'?

I for one don't want it (whatever "it" is).

But, if the "east" appeals to you as strongly as all that, then, in the words of Horace Greeley: "Go east, young man! Go east!"

Posted by: pythagoras at November 29, 2007 2:26 PM

leon the pigfarmer:

It's doubtful that marching will fundamentally change anything politically in the US. BUT---

There may be another way out of this mess for Americans. And that would be for them to repeal some of the nineteenth century economic legislations (which are still on the books) including one constitutional amendment giving corporations legal rights equal to that of a human being (I think it is the fifteenth, but I would need to look it up).

Corporate America received its disproportionate share of US political power in the nineteenth century and things haven't changed all that much since then. And that has come back to haunt us. Americans are finding they are unable to affect the changes necessary to adjust to the new century--and nothing has required America to make fundamental policy shifts more than the global jihad has. And at the same time nothing has exposed America's shortcomings in being able to make such needed changes more than the global jihad. Our survival is on the line and our own political system is failing us badly in our efforts to find a way to survive!

A numbner of legislations were passed during the nineteenth century and were, for their time, considered the cutting edge and they may well have been so; they may even have enabled the United States to attain its status as a global power. But in today's world these same laws can be seen as anacnronistic or even dangerous as they have locked American citizens out of critical decision-making processes that are vital to their nation's survival. The crisis of illegal immigration in America is proof of this. Until American laws regarding corporations are changed we will probably be unable to correct this serious problem as well as many other problems of equal or greater magnitude that we need to resolve somehow.

Clearly, corporate America is NOT up to the job of combating the global onslaught of Islam's jihads (and illegal immigration for that matter). At least not the way the system is set up now. But Americans will NOT be able to change this through marches. They can only change this by restructuring their nation's political power base. And they will have to do it now. If they can gather the will and momentum to do it-- and do it right.

About all marching will do is get a few bigwig pols to make a few temporary concessions as a token gesture of goodwill and then the US will go right back to making the same mistakes it was making before.

Posted by: pythagoras at November 29, 2007 2:50 PM