“The Queen’s chaplain has criticised a church that allowed a Koran reading during a service, saying that it should apologise to Christians ‘suffering dreadful persecution at the hands of Muslims’. The Rev Gavin Ashenden said that the fallout from the decision provided a lesson in the limitations of interfaith dialogue.”
At last, some common sense on this issue, and a refreshing departure from the tired Leftist multiculturalist platitudes that the cathedral offered up in its own defense.
“Queen’s chaplain condemns Koran reading in cathedral,” by David Sanderson, The Times, January 17 2017:
The Queen’s chaplain has criticised a church that allowed a Koran reading during a service, saying that it should apologise to Christians “suffering dreadful persecution at the hands of Muslims”.
The Rev Gavin Ashenden said that the fallout from the decison [sic] provided a lesson in the limitations of interfaith dialogue.
Dr Ashenden was responding to the decision by a Glasgow cathedral to allow the reading of a passage from the Koran that teaches that Jesus is not the son of God during a service to mark the feast of the Epiphany on January 6.
Muslims regard Jesus as a prophet but deny the divine nature ascribed to him in Christian teachings….

RichardL says
Queen E was trained as a mechanic and is very practical minded. Her oldest son married a half-wit and then a shrew and doesn’t know his arse from his elbow. No big surprise here, unless Ashenden would be looking for a new position in the outer Hebrides…
Kepha says
I suspect, in that case, he’ll have to learn Gaelic and join the Continuing Free Kirk of Scotland.
Jake says
…actually he’ll need Syrian since the Scots have started to populate the outer outer islands with so called refugees.
blitz2b says
Yes he is the one who will take o oath as ” defender of faiths” rather than ” defender of THE faith “, if he ever becomes king.
The spineless wimp who is a huge appeaser of Islam was once called a “girl” by his own father when he was a lad. Something didn’t click along the way with his upbringing. I hope he never ever becomes a monarch, and they jump straight to William after the queen passes on.
Salome says
Here is a link to the letter that would appear to be behind The Times’ paywall: https://www.rt.com/uk/373990-koran-church-queen-bishop/
bobm says
Nice to know the Monarchy isn’t totally brain dead…
overman says
This has nothing to do with the monarchy – l haven’t heard any of them condemning lslam, except when the queen asked why Hamza [him with one eye and a hook] was allowed to say what he did. But she said it in private.
Carolyne says
I also read somewhere that prior to the Brexit vote, she was overheard to privately comment, “Name five good things the EU has done.”
Winston says
Her son is the problem. He will not support this priest if his outpourings are anything to go by.
marina says
Finally a courageous person standing against the appeasement of Muslims. Why don’t the Glasgow cathedral have a bible reading session in a mosque.
Mockingjay says
It’s no coincedence that this is the Queens’ Chaplain making this comment.
– I think the Windsors know damn well what is going on in the world, and I am now even more convinced that the speech that Prince Charles gave a few weeks ago was an attempt to speak out about it.
– That the speech itself left much to be desired in clarity is of course true, still I think the intentions behind it were quite clear, – and the Queens’Chaplain making this statement here to me confirms this.
ECAW says
Hmm…Did rou read the full text? I too thought the intentions behind it were quite clear but in an opposite way to you. Which of my comments do you disagree with, and why if I may ask?
https://ecawblog.wordpress.com/2016/12/24/charles-prince-of-folly/
Darryl Kerney says
excellent commentary ECAW !
i’d like to add, i heard Charlie’s speech on the radio while driving, when he got to this part i got very pissed off :
“And we might also remember that when the Prophet Mohammed migrated from Mecca to Medina he did so because he too was seeking the freedom for himself and his followers to worship”,
my immediate thought was, “And then he proceeded to start slaughtering everyone who rejected his new cult !”
And then, “Why was he chased out of Mecca ? He wasn’t “persecuted”, they saw him for the dangerous lunatic HE WAS !”
Mockingjay says
ECAW, I will try and reply to you in the next day(s) if that is allright, I just can’t do it at this moment as I haven’t got enough time for it right now.
Mockingjay says
Hi ECAW, – hope you’re still around to read this, since it’s taking me longer than I intended to reply to your question.
So here it goes:
-The main reason for me to not agree with (most of) your analysis of Prince Charles’ speech, – without going through it point by point – is that I think you are ASSUMING too much in regard to what he might be meaning by certain phrases.
– You, and most people here who have commented on his speech, are, in my opinion, all basing their judgement on the certainty that his words can ONLY be explained in one possible manner. But to me, his phrases aren’t so unambiguous at all.
– For example, when he states that people being so viciously persecuted for their religion reminds him of “the 1930’s”, everyone here seemed to automatically presume he was referring to the “muslims are the new Jews” absurdity again.
I am. however, not so sure that this really is what he was doing.
– I think what is happening in the Middle East to the Christian population there, is in fact VERY comparable to what was happening to the Jews in the 1930s, and THAT is how I understand his comparison.
I do, of course, FULLY agree with your criticism that by talking about Mohammeds’ “migration” to Medina he is making a TOTALLY ridiculous point – to say the least – , but I do not think we should base our judgement of his speech solely on this UTTERLY absurd equation.
– Again, I think there could be more than just one possible explanation of why he included this in his speech, as absurd as it may seem to us.
– First, maybe he isn’t as savvy about Islam as he could or should be, and he believes the story about Mohammed as it usually is told, to be the truth.
– But I think there could be another reason for him to make this reference, and it could be the same reason as to why he doesn’t NAME muslims as the persecutors in ANY way in NO part of his speech.
In short – I think he knows he has to tread carefully here.
– I think the Prince knows DAMN well it’s the MUSLIMS doing the persecuting EVERY TIME, and when I read what he is saying about the Syrian Christians, I can taste his indignation about all of it.
– But how do you tell the full truth, when you’re in his position?
He is not an elected leader of state, he is not a scholar, I think he has VERY limited freedom in expressing what he really thinks – at least when it comes to such “controversial” subjects, – and also subjects of DIRECT and PRESENT danger(s) to national security.
– See – everyone knows that things can get VERY “explosive”, VERY fast, when you rub muslims the wrong way.
I don’t think he can or wants to take that risk.
Now, you could of course still hold the opnion that he, regardless, should be telling the whole, un-obfuscated truth, instead of concealing it in between some stark lies, – and I surely DO understand that criticism.
But – I still feel that the INTENTIONS of this speech are of much more integrity than he has been given credit for, – even if the execution of these intentions leaves much to be desired.
And now, that the Queens’ Chaplain has come out and so VERY clearly condemned this TRAVESTY of the reading the quran in a Christian Cathedral, I feel strengthened in my impression that there is much more awareness of – and concern about – the violent nature of Islam within the Royal family than Prince Charles’ speech might have led to believe.
– Of course, people have commented that this is “the Queen speaking”, and that her son is just a silly good-for-nothing, but again, I feel that this is an assumption that really is not based on facts.
– What do we really know about how these people relate to eachother or what they talk about in their private conversations? I find it much more likely that the Chaplain not just has a personal relationship with the Queen, but with Prince Charles as well, and I think that in writing his speech, he probably consulted both of them.
Now, to wrap it up, and to be sure: I am NO royalty fan whatsoever, and have never cared about Prince Charles as a person.
I just felt he doesn’t deserve the kind of derision he received here for his speech, and I also felt that we should sometimes be more careful in the way we judge someone.
– Hardly ANY poltical or religious leader in the West has even spoken out against the genocide of the Christians in the Middle East.
Prince Charles did.
That has GOT to count for something.
ECAW says
Mockingjay – Thanks for replying. Firstly, let me say I have always had a fair amount of sympathy for Charles. That is why I toned down the title from “Prince of Fools” to “Prince of Folly”. He is the wrong man born into the wrong job which he tries to carry out dutifully. However, he uses the position he finds himself in by accident of birth to speak out on controversial issues, which the monarch is meant to avoid, and to meddle in political matters. I do not expect to see him rein himself in once he is King.
Secondly, I wouldn’t pay any attention to that “Queen’s chaplain” business. It appears to be more of a title, awarded for long service and good behaviour, than a post. There are currently 34 of them so I doubt if Rev Ashenden has the ear of the Queen or Charles and it’s not surprising to find a maverick among them:
https://www.crockford.org.uk/royal-appointments
Yes, he raised the subject (in a very circumspect way) and did something similar in another video a year or two ago, the message of which amounted to no more than “everybody please be nice”. Perhaps he knows more and it was as far as he was allowed to go but I don’t think so.
For one thing he is an enthusiast for multiculturalism but also has a long standing admiration for Islam, so much so that it has been rumoured that he is secretly a convert (not that I buy that myself).
But to get down to brass tacks, you honed in on the section which caused me most trouble ie did he intend his comparison to 30’s anti-Semitism to refer to persecuted Christians or persecuted (mostly Muslim) migrants or both. I had to read it several times before I came to the definite conclusion that he meant primarily migrants arriving in Europe.
This is the section:
“And the suffering doesn’t end when they arrive seeking refuge in a foreign land. We are now seeing the rise of many populist groups across the world that are increasingly aggressive towards those who adhere to a minority faith. All of this has deeply disturbing echoes of the dark days of the 1930s. I was born in 1948, just after the end of World War II in which my parents’ generation had fought and died in a battle against intolerance, monstrous extremism and an inhuman attempt to exterminate the Jewish population of Europe. That nearly 70 years later, we should still be seeing such evil persecution is to me beyond all belief. We owe it to those who suffered and died so horribly not to repeat the horrors of the past.”
What and who exactly are all those pronouns referring to? It is thoroughly confusing and open to differing interpretations. You see it as Charles being diplomatically reserved, and I accept it is a plausible interpretation. The only way I can make sense out of it is the way I interpreted it and I still do see it that way. Two things external to the passage affected my interpretation, his glossing over of Muslim persecutions at the beginning and his equating the Hijrah with Jesus’ flight into Egypt at the end. In my view the three sections are all of a piece, offering special pleading for Islam and Muslims.
But I see this morning we have been overtaken by events. Rev Ashenden has clearly been told to shut up by the Palace and he took the honourable choice of quitting as chaplain so he could speak out about the “Koran in the Cathedral” episode. Does that not clarify the Palace’s stance on the religion they are pledged to defend and the one attacking it whenever and wherever it can?
Mockingjay says
ECAW, (if you read this, which I do hope you will)
– Please excuse me for coming back to you so very, very late.
I’d read your answer already in early February, and intended to reply to you, as I took your ending on a question as an invitation to do so.
Unfortunately, I left it way too long and then forgot for a while.
– But I still intend on writing a reply, as you so graciously made the effort to answer me before.
Again, my apologies for answering so late.
– Will write my reply within the next days.
ECAW says
OK, I’m still here. Thanks.
ECAW says
By the way, here is someone else who read it the same way although I assumed Charles was referring to Wilders, Le Pen, Orban etc in Europe rather than Trump:
“There can be little doubt that he was also getting at Donald Trump by referring to ‘many populist groups’ who, Charles said, are increasingly aggressive to those who adhere to a minority faith — an apparent allusion to Islam.
He claimed to have been reminded of ‘the dark days of the Thirties’ — another reference to the Nazis. Wasn’t this veiled lunge at Trump way over the top? In fact — not to beat about the bush — verging on the lunatic?”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4190422/I-tremble-Monarchy-s-future-says-STEPHEN-GLOVER.html
Mockingjay says
Hello again ECAW,
Thank you for the article you posted above – It did enlighten me a bit on the person and peculiarities of the Prince of Wales – which your first reply already did as well I might add.
– Since I am not British, there’s only so much I knew about him. If you say that he is quite a multicultural fan and fascinated about islam at that, then that does change the way I view him and his words, I must admit.
I must also admit that I was quite disappointed to find out that the Rev Gavin Ashenden was not “the” but just “a” Queen’s chaplain, and one who had to give up this title very swiftly after speaking out against the islamic faith.
Of course, to answer your question, this is a clear indication that “the Palace” won’t tolerate this kind of talk. But whether this also means that they do not agree with him remains to be seen, I think.
– After all, the Daily Mail article you linked to elaborates on how the Queen has always strictly adhered to her rule of not voicing her personal opinions – and then frets over Charles not being as modest.
– Which brings me to the passage of the speech you inserted in your reply, and on which the Daily Mail article builds its argument that Prince Charles is trying to berate President Trump.
Indeed, I agree, this part of the speech is problematic.
If it were a stand-alone text, I would be likely to agree that these are the exact same words and analogies we have heard so many times before from the Pope, EU officials, and many others who think they have moral authority over the rest of us.
But I still maintain there is something strange – and maybe intentionally vague – about this part of the speech.
As you say yourself. it is far from clear what it is EXACTLY that he means by choosing the formulations he did.
For example, when he says ” that nearly 70 years later, we should still be seeing such evil persecution is to me beyond all belief”, I think he is absolutely NOT referring to anything happening in Europe.
Sure, there are people crying “islamophobia” all the time, but it takes a lot of imagination to claim that there is an “evil persecution” of muslims going on in Europe right now.
And another riddle – what is it with this “rise of many populist groups across the world” that he speaks of?
– Since when are there populist groups all around the world?
When talking about “populism”, it is always, pretty much without exception, about the populism of Europe. Other parts of the world seem immune to it. Isn’t that remarkable? Now why would that be?
And what about America ? Is there populism in America ?
– Despite all the ugly things being said about Donald Trump, I can honestly say I can’t remember having heard the term “populist president Trump” ONCE.
The writer of the Daily Mail article however, sees Charles’ speech as a not-so-subtle attack on precisely Donald Trump. I do doubt that.
I am willing to concede that the mere mentioning of “populist groups” is doubtlessly an indication of Charles’ disapproval of these political movements in Europe, – but I also think that there are many, and particularly those amongst the upper classes of Europe, that might have their very own reasons for disapproving of such “rebellious” movements, reasons that not necessarely have much to do with worries about “islamophobia”…!
So, now, what to make of it?
I do NOT believe that Charles has a FULL perspective on the danger that is islam. I also do not believe he could speak about it freely if he had. I just cannot shake the feeling that he does know more than he lets on.
Now – if you would say that this is a BIG assumption on my part, you of course would be right. I am also fully aware that the overwhelming majority are agreeing on your view, not mine. I still feel my position was worth defending.
I will also risk a bit of a prediction here: I predict that as the situation in Europe will start to deteriorate over the next 5 to 10 years, of which I am quite sure it will, “neutrality” and appealing to “both sides to be nice” will no longer be much of an option, and we will find out about the true colors of Prince, – maybe then King – Charles – as well as about those of many others.
Shmooviyet says
“…limitations of interfaith dialogue.”
Mild, but a ha’penny less PC than the usual islami-crud heard from the church.
Crazy Charlie’s going to have one nasty tantrum over this.
Tradiguy says
If you ever wanted proof that the man is a prat, his comments about what we should be thinking about at CHRISTMAS ie Mohammad’s journey from medina to Mecca- there it is. Not about a young woman heavily pregnant, seeking somewhere to have the Christ Child and having to settle for a stable with the animals Ih No! Some fricking peado who has caused the world so much pain and been responsible for countless corpses down the centuries!! What a fricking waste of space he is and if he is going to spout the globalists bollocks, he could have the grace to wait until Christmas has passed. A traitor to his faith? No, I don’t think so – he hasn’t got any!!
gravenimage says
True, Tradiguy.
Mark A says
Finally, some sensible commentary on this issue from a senior Anglican.
But it’s too late. The damage has already been done and the Anglican Church’s reputation and credibility have taken a severe hit.
Tradiguy says
When are Christians going to wake up? As soon as this shit started to be read, the place should have emptied in seconds! Let your feet do the talking! If you sit there and listen to Satanic verses you deserve what you get! I can’t recall any text from the bible being read at a mosque- or at least no reports of it and why? Because they hate us and everything we stand for . Well with me, the feeling is mutual.!
davej says
Understatement of the year: “a lesson on the limitations of inter-faith dialogue”.
In the case of Islam you cannot negotiate, trust, discuss or even take at face value anything that is said, except that they really do want you to submit to them.
Angemon says
Good, a breath of common sense. Although, if I were to nitpick, I’d prefer he would have said “to all Christians, especially suffering dreadful persecution at the hands of Muslims”
Raja says
Angmeon,
Welll said. More words from him would have been more appropriate for this sacrilege.and blasphemy.
DFD says
How gentlemanly of him. However, he knows fully well what the chance for an apology is. FAT CHANCE!
On the other hand, if he were an imam, demanding an apology from a single Christian clergyman for eating a pork sandwich in the vicinity of a mosques, say a mile or so… Well, I think half of Europe’s, and probably the US’, clergymen would apologize, regardless if they know what it was about or not.
gravenimage says
UK: Queen’s chaplain says cathedral that featured Qur’an reading should apologize to persecuted Christians
………………………………………..
Bravo, Reverend Gavin Ashenden!
miriamrove says
I am wondering how long before he is forced to apologize or forced to resign. m
DFD says
Good point!
Kay says
This is not the first time Reverend Ashenden has spoken up. From 2015:
The Koran has “over 100 verses inviting people to violence” which Christianity “doesn’t have,” one of the Queen’s chaplains has claimed.
Reverend Ashenden said in response (to a warning that his comments could offend those Muslims who describe their faith as entirely peaceful): “If they are offended by my quoting the Koran they are not offended by me, they are offended by the Koran.
gravenimage says
Thanks for the additional information, Kay! Glad to hear this is not the first time he has spoken out.
Raja says
Kay, your point (and record) is really appreciated. Thank you.
underbed cat says
Someone is awake. That is great news maybe he can share his information with the Parliament, and the Queen can do a intervention for Charles..I am assuming the Queen would agree/understood, with the Chaplin’s statement.
Monica Shelley says
Well said, Rev Ashenden. We need to chuck out whoever is in charge of this grossly offensive decision.
The Koran is contrary to everything Christians believe, and Mahomet was an evil bloodthirsty man, Jesus warned against false prophets who would come after him.
Guest says
Praise this guy and long live the Queen
dumbledoresarmy says
Pray that he has had occasion to speak, in private, and at some length, about both Christianity and Islam, with Prince William, and with Catherine. And pray that they are paying attention when he does.
Steven says
Finally, some balls of bull…..but wish to see more of them.
Benedict says
Maybe the pope will come to his senses and take the advice of this Pastor. Very good Reverend and thank you for your support for Christians
Anne Smith says
A good man. Let us hope the excellent sense and honesty of Rev Ashenden inspire others to follow his lead.
Susette says
Hallelujah and Hosanna! Finally, a Christian that speaks the truth about islam.
I am especially fond of what Kay writes: “Reverend Ashenden said in response (to a warning that his comments could offend those Muslims who describe their faith as entirely peaceful): “If they are offended by my quoting the Koran they are not offended by me, they are offended by the Koran.” I will be using his quote frequently!
Bravo, Rev Ashenden!
Christianblood says
The Queen’s chaplain is right in what he said. May God bless him!
gravenimage says
Yes–excellent to see some anti-dhimmitude!
citycat says
@ Guest
The Queen endorsed Brexit?
Why T. May has gone hard.
Well, if 5 countries also exit cos of Brexit, then that is 5 more free enlightened grasshoppers to come outta the EU and join the community of free independent individuals.
citycat says
@ jake
Muslims in the outer Islands is handy spot for them to operate from.
blitz2b says
Just wondering, to further interfaith dialogue, would Muslims allow the reading of the bible at a mosque? Why is it always one sided? Isn’t dialogue supposed to be a binary affair?
It seems that Christians who are the most tolerant of the two faiths is always being given lessons on tolerance while Muslims who follow their extremely violent religion are always given a pass when it comes to reciprocating tolerance to the former.
Would Muslims allow the reading of Jesus in a mosque where he warns against false prophets? Or the one where Jesus advises his followers not to fast like hypocrites or pray in the street corners for all the world to see? Would they allow such readings?
Yet our own dhimmified religious leaders willfully bend backwards to appease Muslims while they read from a hate filled book that mocks the very essential teachings of our faith.
Have our pastors, priests and popes gone
completely mad or has the church lost it’s bearings on the truth and will appease even the devil on order not to offend?