<  back  1  |  2  |  3   next  > 

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.”

<  back  1  |  2  |  3   next  >