Prince Charles convert of Islam?
I was reading an article about Prince Charles visit to Turkey and I was struck by his timeless fascination with Islam. The article can be found here.
After reading this article I decided to search about Prince Charles interest in Islam and found an interesting article which I don’t know to make of. Has to be absurd conspiracy surely. Anyway, you can make up your own mind. Sure is an extreme article…
Prince Charles: The Constantine of Islam?
By Ali Sina
When Constantine began his rule, only 5% of the Western Roman Empire was Christian. He came to power at the age of 24 and did not baptize until he was in his fifties and close to his death. Technically, he did not force his subjects to convert, but he gradually introduced Christianity and changed the laws making it harder to practice paganism.
He increased taxes for the pagans while exonerated the churches and the Christians priests from paying them. He granted lands and built many Christian churches. He gave Christian bishops the authority of judges – against whom there would be no appeal. He imposed moral codes by creating severe penalties against adultery, concubinage and prostitution. For a variety of other crimes, people were to have their eyes gouged out or their legs maimed. In keeping with Paul’s instructions that slaves should “obey their masters with fear and trembling” [Eph 6:5], he passed a law allowing masters to beat their slaves to death. He allowed infants born to slaves to be sold and allowed slaves who were caught seeking refuge among “barbarians” to have a foot amputated. Slaves in the public services caught attempting to leave town were to be beaten. With the agreement of bishops, slaves who sought refuge in Christian churches were to be returned to their masters.
Constantine did not abolish democracy, but introduced policies that made the Senate even more ineffective. Cities continued electing their officials but under him municipal governments declined. He revived the secret police, which was notorious for its reputation.
These changes were gradual. They destabilized the democratic system and inaugurated an era of despotism which ushered Europe into obscurantism that lasted over a millennium. The Church received governmental grants to build orphanages, hospitals, inns for travelers, and it founded old age homes, all of which helped increase Christianity’s prestige and popularity. Constantine was gullible and the priests used him to advance their cause. 1
Is Prince Charles being groomed to become the Constantine of Islam in England?
Prince Charles has come to America for an eight-day tour. His mission is to persuade W. Bush and the Americans of “the merits of Islam”. He has voiced private concerns over America’s “confrontational” approach to Muslim countries and its failure to appreciate “Islam’s strengths”. He thinks United States has been too intolerant of the religion.
What is behind this interest in Islam? Why would the Prince of Wales become an ambassador of this Arabian religion?
In a 1997 Middle East Quarterly article titled “Prince Charles of Arabia,” Ronni L. Gordon and David M. Stillman looked at evidence that Britain’s Prince Charles might be a secret convert to Islam.
This claim was put forward by no less a personage than the grand mufti of Cyprus: “Did you know that Prince Charles has converted to Islam. Yes, yes. He is a Muslim. I can’t say more. But it happened in Turkey. Oh, yes, he converted all right. When you get home check on how often he travels to Turkey. You’ll find that your future king is a Muslim.”
The Prince has not made any announcements about his conversion. But he is no stranger to surprises. After all, didn’t he surprise everyone with his confession to adultery when he was still married to Princess Diana?
Charles has made several strong and disturbing public statements endorsing Islam “as the solution to the spiritual and cultural ills of Britain and the West”. When Ayatollah Khomeini issued the fatwa against Salman Rushdie for lampooning Muhammad in his novel Satanic Verses, rather than defend Rushdie’s right to free speech, Charles reacted to the death decree by reflecting on the positive features that Islam has to offer the spiritually empty lives of his countrymen.
His views on Islamic terrorism are similar to those expressed by the apologists of Islam. He believes that Islam has been hijacked by the extremists. In a major address on Islam on October 27, 1993, at the Sheldonian Theatre at Oxford where he is a vice patron of the Centre for Islamic Studies, Charles declared:
“Our judgment of Islam has been grossly distorted by taking the extremes to the norm. . . . For example, people in this country frequently argue that the Sharia law of the Islamic world is cruel, barbaric and unjust. Our newspapers, above all, love to peddle those unthinking prejudices. The truth is, of course, different and always more complex. My own understanding is that extremes, like the cutting off of hands, are rarely practiced. The guiding principle and spirit of Islamic law, taken straight from the Qur’an, should be those of equity and compassion.”
These are the words of an apologist of Islam. They are of course absurd. The Quran calls for cutting the hands of thieves 5.38 and those who wage war against Allah and his messenger 5.33 i.e. anyone who criticizes Islam. If Muslims rarely practice this law it is a credit to them. It shows they are more humane than their prophet. But Charles is defending ISLAM. He is claiming that the guiding principle and spirit of Islamic law is taken straight from the Quran. Cutting the hands is straight from the Quran. What spirit of the Quran is Charles advocating when he brushes under the carpet its clear mandate? Which part of the Quran teaches equity and compassion? No one expects kings to be intellectuals, but shouldn’t they be minimally intelligent?
Charles went as far as to suggest that European women may even find something to envy in the situation of their Muslim sisters:
He said: “Islamic countries like Turkey, Egypt and Syria gave women the vote as early as Europe did its women-and much earlier than in Switzerland! In those countries women have long enjoyed equal pay, and the opportunity to play a full working role in their societies.”
This is typical Islamic propaganda. Muslims love to compare the worst of the West with the best of Islam and even take credit for what is anti Islamic. If at one stage these countries disregarded Islam, despite of it adopted secular laws and gave women some recognition, why should Islam be credited for that? Isn’t this a non sequitur logical fallacy? Doesn’t the Prince read the history of these nations to learn that women’s status there was gained because the secularists beat the Islamists? Doesn’t he know that in 1920 the French defeated King Faysal in Syria and it was they who gave women voting power? Doesn’t he know that the emancipation of women in Egypt is owed to a secular reform called Egypt’s Liberal Experiment (1924-1936) that mimicked the European style of government? Do I have to tell him that Ataturk’s reforms were not Islamic? How can Islam give voting rights to women, when it does not recognizes democracy? All these reforms failed and all these countries now harbor terrorists. Islam cannot accept modernity. How can the future king of England make comments so uninformed?
Lambasting at the Western civilization and declaring Christianity as inadequate to the task of spiritual restoration, this future head of the Church of England, has declared that “Western civilization has become increasingly acquisitive and exploitive in defiance of our environmental responsibilities.” Instead, he praised the “Islamic revival” of the 1980s and portrayed Islam as Britain’s salvation:
“Islam can teach us today a way of understanding and living in the world which Christianity itself is poorer for having lost. At the heart of Islam is its preservation of an integral view of the Universe. Islam-like Buddhism and Hinduism-refuses to separate man and nature, religion and science, mind and matter, and has preserved a metaphysical and unified view of ourselves and the world around us. . . . But the West gradually lost this integrated vision of the world with Copernicus and Descartes and the coming of the scientific revolution. A comprehensive philosophy of nature is no longer part of our everyday beliefs.”
It is disturbingly clear that Charles is disdainful of enlightenment and nostalgic of obscurantism. He concluded his speech by suggesting that “there are things for us to learn in this system of belief which I suggest we ignore at our peril.”
Like what? What is it exactly that Muslims have that if the Britons ignore it would be perilous to them? Is the Prince talking about stoning, hand chopping, beheading, public beating, polygamy, dictatorship, misogyny, marriage of little girls, honor killing, patriarchy, human rights abuses and all other ills that are directly inspired by the Quran? In what ways Islam is superior to the Western culture? Apart from the fact that Islam treats humans like animals and punishes them for thinking independently, in what other ways it unifies man and nature?
If Charles is concerned about the decline of morality in England, shouldn’t he, as the “defender of the Faith” and the head of the Church of England revive Christian values of morality and to begin with, set better personal examples? Doesn’t Christianity prohibit adultery? [Mat.5:29] It is not that Christianity does not have moral and family values. If most Christians have abandoned those values, it is not the fault of Christianity. Why the Britons, or anyone for that matter, need to embrace a barbarian cult such as Islam to become moral when all they have to do is practice their own faith? It is foolish to believe that the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence and the alien is always superior to the familiar.
Becoming moral is a personal struggle. Whether you are a Muslim, a Christian or an atheist, it is YOU who must strive and become moral. Religions don’t give you a magic pill. If morality is what you want, why can’t you exert to become more moral by becoming a better Christian? Is Christianity against morality? Does Christianity separate Man from Nature? Why one has to embrace a dark faith such as Islam that resembles a cult of terror in order to become moral or discover his unity with nature? The only thing Islam has is FEAR. Islam frightens its followers with the imagery of a dreadful hell. Do we really need that stick to do the right thing and be moral?
The Prince of Wales knows nothing about Islam. He is ignorant of the bloody history of this cult, its violence, its misogyny, its intolerance, its enmity with science, its antagonism towards intellectuals, its disdain for fine arts, its incompatibility with democracy, and knows nothing about the objectionable character of its founder.
Charles obviously does not subscribe to the draconian Islamic laws. He is relieved that the majority of Islamic countries do not practice Sharia and do not cut the hands of the thieves as prescribed in the Quran. He believes in the “reformed Islam”. Apart from the fact that reformed Islam is only a chimera, a lie created as window-dressing to fool the Westerners and all it means is “less Islam”, the question that begs an answer is: why decry Christianity, which is already reformed and support an alien belief system that cannot be reformed and in its pure state is so inhumane that even the Prince can’t stomach?
Is the Prince tired of democracy? Does he secretly envy the Islamic system of government where the rulers have absolute power and can even impose morality on their subjects? Or is he completely misinformed? Where Charles gets all these erroneous concepts about Islam?
Gordon and Stillman reveal that Charles has set up a panel of twelve “wise men” (in fact, eleven men and one woman) to advise him on Islamic religion and culture. The group was reported to have met in secret. Of course no comparable body exists to inform the crown prince about other faiths practiced in his future realm. Has Charles already fallen prey to Islam and is he now practicing kitman? (hide one’s belief)
The news coming from the royalty is disconcerting. Gordon and Stillman say that Charles has taken steps to give Islam a special status. “Among the many titles borne by the British sovereign is ‘Defender of the Faith,’ a reference to the fact that the monarch heads not only the government but also the Church of England. But the prince has reservations about this title. In a June 1994 television documentary he declared his preference to be known as “Defender of Faith” rather than “Defender of the Faith,” leading to a rash of speculation that he favors the disestablishment of the Church of England.”
It appears that this council of “wise men” has already a plan of action for the future king of England to Islamize the country. Discussing the role of Islam in the United Kingdom, in a speech at the Foreign Office Conference Centre at Wilton Park in Sussex on December 13, 1996, Charles called on Islamic pedagogy and philosophy to help young Britons develop a “healthier view of the world”. Praising Islamic culture in its traditional form for trying to preserve an “integrated, spiritual view of the world in a way we have not seen fit to do in recent generations in the West,” he went on to say:
There is much we can learn from that Islamic world view in this respect. There are many ways in which mutual understanding and appreciation can be built. Perhaps, for instance, we could begin by having more Muslim teachers in British schools, or by encouraging exchanges of teachers. Everywhere in the world people want to learn English. But in the West, in turn, we need to be taught by Islamic teachers how to learn with our hearts, as well as our heads.
According to the Prince, all that Muslims need to learn from the West is English, while the “spiritually bankrupt” Westerners are in dire need of learning Islamic philosophy and values.
What philosophy? What values? Tell me what Islam has that Christianity doesn’t and I will tell you a million things that the Western culture has that Islam doesn’t. First and foremost is freedom of thought and respect for human dignity. In the West people are people. In Islam they are slaves and like animals their thoughts do not count. If they dare to express a thought contrary to Islam, they will be executed.
Why like all Muslims you compare the unbelieving decadent ‘Christians’ with the ‘ideal Islam’? Why don’t you compare Christians with Muslims, fundamentalist Christians with fundamentalist Muslims and Christianity with Islam? When you stop this logical fallacy of comparing apples to oranges, you will see that Christianity is a thousand time superior to Islam and Christians are a thousand time better than Muslims. Fundamentalist Christians are just nutcases. All you have to do is ignore them. Fundamentalist Muslims are terrorists. You can’t ignore them. And there is no comparison between Jesus and Muhammad. The former was a super saint, the latter was a thug.
While criticizing the Western civilization Charles added:
During the past three centuries, in the Western world at least, a dangerous division has occurred in the way we perceive the world around us. Science has tried to assume a monopoly even a tyranny over our understanding. Religion and science have become separated, so that now, as Wordsworth said, “Little we see in nature that is ours”. Science has attempted to take over the natural world from God; it has fragmented the cosmos and relegated the sacred to a separate and secondary compartment of our understanding, divorced from practical, day to day existence. 3
Science does not pretend to have answers to all human questions. Science has its own modus operandi and does not concern itself with things that are not verifiable through scientific means. It is not up to science to speculate on supernatural and spirituality. But science per se, is not tyrannical. Scientists may not agree with your views but they will never jail you, torture you or behead you for believing in what they regard scientific heresies. In the midst of the most scientific societies, you are allowed to believe in, and even preach, hocus-pocus and do not have to fear for your life. It is Islam that claims monopoly of the truth, jails its dissidents, tortures them and beheads them. What would befall to a Muslim scientist if he dares to say Jinns are fairytale, Muhammad did not split the moon and Mi’raj (the alleged ascension of Muhammad to heaven riding on a winged horsy) is ridiculous?
What part of the Quran is scientific? This book is an insult to human intelligence. What has been the contribution of Islam to science? Nothing! Islam has been a hindrance to science. The few scientists who were born in Islamic countries and gave birth to what now Muslims claim to be “Islamic science”, were all apostates and unbelievers. Some of them, like Razi, ridiculed religions and called the prophets, “billy goats” and “charlatans”. The quartets of Khayyam, the great poet/mathematician, is full of ridicules of the Quran and its epistemology. Others, like Ibn Sina and Ibn Rushd were denounced as heretics and often were on the move to escape persecution. Whatever these scientists planted with their “heads” was nipped in the bud by true Muslims like Al Ghazali and Rumi who followed their “hearts”. Islam put an end to science and scientific quest. Rather than investigating the causes of the natural phenomena, everything was explained as the “will of God” and the researchers were mocked. What harmony of science and religion Charles sees in Islam? Why he does not enlighten us?
As is to be expected, Charles has reached a hero status among Muslims.
CAIRO, June 21 (IslamOnline.net) – Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah of Brunei will award Prince Charles, the heir to the British crown, an international prize for his contribution to understanding Islam in the West during a London ceremony on Thursday, June 24.
The Prince of Wales was unanimously chosen by an international jury set up by the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies (OCIS) for his earnest efforts to promote dialogue between the Islamic and Western civilizations, 4
John Casey of Cambridge University, warns that the British public lacks a clear understanding of Charles’s standing in the Muslim world:
The extent to which the Prince is admired by Muslims-even to the point of hero-worship-has not yet sunk into the consciousness of the British public. When it does, that public may or may not be pleased.
As it is clear, Charles likes to think with his heart rather than with his head. Heart is for feelings. To find one’s way one must use his head. Impressionable people like Charles can easily be coned. He, obviously is being used by Muslims with whose help they hope to penetrate England and indoctrinate the Britons with Islam. Gordon and Stillman write: “At a private dinner with Prince Charles in May 1997, Prince Bandar bin Sultan of Saudi Arabia announced a donation by King Fahd of $33 million to Oxford University to construct a new Centre for Islamic Studies at Oxford, a gift designed “to establish Islamic studies at the heart of the British education system.”
Centre for Islamic Studies is just a fancy name for madrassah. Thousands of mosques, madrassahs and Islamic centers have been sprouted all over UK. Islam is gradually penetrating in that country, destabilizing its democratic foundation and fomenting terrorism among its Muslim population. Muslims’ ‘generosity’ does not come with no-strings-attached. Wherever they invest their money, whether it is in Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia, UK or USA, the objective is to advance Islamic imperialism. Soon terrorism will follow and the country will become a war zone.
The Britons should know that the first allegiance of a Muslim is to Islam. Every Muslim, whether he is a pauper or a prince has the duty to advance the cause of Islam and make it dominant.
Muslims, function as the fifth column, in favor of Islam, wherever they reside. The Britons must realize that Islam is not just another faith. Islam is a fascistic doctrine that uses religion to advance its political agenda. If the king of England has sympathies towards Islam, whether he is a convert or just a ‘useful idiot’, this should be a matter of concern to everyone. His sympathy to Islam will boost Islamic zealotry and will feed Islamic terrorism.
With so much scandals oozing out of the House of Windsor, Charles flirting with Islam and his son Harry wearing a swastika armband, maybe it is time that the Britons see whether they really have any need for the archaic institution of monarchy. Apart from providing fodder for the tabloid industry what other useful function does monarchy have?
Instead of coming to America and lecturing to Americans about a faith of which he knows nothing but some lies and clichés that he has been told, I challenge the Prince of Wales to urge his panel of “wise men” to confront me and prove that my charges against Muhammad are false. Will he at least ask them to do that? If he really cares about the truth, this is the least he should do.
Is Prince Harry also a Muslim in closet?
This article should be read by the President of the United States before listening to Prince Charles’s charade about Islam. Please forward it to him, to the Secretary of State, to all the members of the Congress, to your governor and to your mayor. Send it to your local newspaper and ask them to publish it. Don’t assume that truth will always win. This is a childish belief. It happens only in fairytales. History shows that only those who are determined win. If you are not determined the Isamists will win and mankind will lose.
Permission is granted to publish this article and I encourage you to promote it as much as you can until it reaches the Prince and millions of others who like him are fed with lies about Islam. Being a ‘useful idiot‘ is just as dangerous as being the enemy itself, or perhaps more.
2- [Quoted in Giles Milton, The Riddle and the Knight: In Search of Sir John Mandeville (London: Allison & Busby, 1996), p. 78.]
Source of unspecified Quotes in this article is: Prince Charles of Arabia by Ronni L. Gordon and David M. Stillman SEPTEMBER 1997 • VOLUME IV: NUMBER 3 http://www.meforum.org/article/356
Europe, Politics, Religion, UK, World