Prince Charles - Defender of Faith?

On tour in Egypt with the Duchess of Cornwall, the Prince of Wales has called for greater tolerance between the Islamic and Western worlds. In a speech at Al-Azhar university in Cairo, he has also had a go at those who published the Danish cartoons, expressing concern over the 'failure to listen and to respect what is precious and sacred to others.' This is commented on in our main leader today. It is all most commendable, but I just can't help but wonder how Abdul Rahman, facing the death penalty in Afghanistan for apostasy, feels about the Prince urging us to more tolerance. It seems bizarre that in Afghanistan, as the Bishop of Rochester told me yesterday, British soldiers, fighting under the banner of our monarch, are being injured and killed for the sake of upholding a regime that executes apostates who convert to Christianity. (*Update: news today, Sat 25, that Afghan president intervening and today, Mon 27, that all the international pressure has worked and Rahman will be released.)

And I also cannot help but feel sorry for Meurig Williams, the Welsh clergyman who has today resigned as editor of the Church in Wales magazine after the Archbishop Barry Morgan was forced to apologise for the publication of one of those now-notorious cartoons. Yes, it was an almost unbelievably idiotic thing to do and our msm have shown wise restraint in not publishing them. And yes, the Prince of Wales is right to speak out against Islamophobia. But I can't help wonder who is going to start speaking out in defence of Christians and Christianity around the globe.

It seems unlikely that we can expect much defending of Britain's historic faith from the future head of the Church of England. In Britain, our future monarch, perhaps on line to become the first truly Multi-Cultural Monarch, has already made it clear in his 1994 BBC interview that he wishes to be defender of faith rather than Defender of the Faith when he ascends the throne.

Ian Bradley of St Andrew's university has argued: 'We are witnessing a reinvention of the monarchy to articulate the values of a tolerant society and to provide a focus for multiculturalism and religious pluralism.'

Another Scottish academic, Graham Spence, contacted me this morning with some enlightening insights following the article I wrote for today's paper about Islam's deathly treatment of apostates. You can read here just one of the many sources I used for this short piece. Spence has studied Islam for the past five years both as a form of personal study and towards a degree and he is currently doing an MSc in journalism at Napier in Edinburgh. Regarding the Prince of Wales, he says: 'This is an impassioned speech from a man who believes what he is saying but clearly does not understand what he is dealing with. A few years ago he expressed a desire to be "defender of faith" removing the definite article from the title. However his history studies at university should have told him that the title was granted to Henry VIII by Pope Leo X for defending the faith from the evils of Luther and Tyndale, and royalty being royalty, despite the split from the Church of Rome, they kept the title long after Catholicism was gone from the UK palaces.'

On apostasy and the Koran, he writes: 'The Qur’an taken on its own without reference to the Hadiths or the Seerah makes no sense. The three work in concert, with the Qur’an being the word of Allah, the Hadiths the collected sayings of The Prophet and the Seerah being his biography. They work together as a literary trinity. The peaceful Surahh 2.256 which reads "Let there be no compulsion in religion; truth stands out clearly from error"  is one of the most quoted verses, but it is usually quoted out of context, and is clearly contradicted by other verses.

'All the seeming contradictions between different verses are dealt with by the law of abrogation, which is taught by the Qur'an in surah 2:106,108, stating: "We substitute one revelation for another..." This is echoed in surah 17:86, which reads,  "If it were Our Will, We could take away that which We have sent thee by inspiration." In surah 16:101 the law of abrogation is clearly defined as one verse being substituted by a better verse. Verse 101 read,  "None of our revelations do We abrogate or cause to
be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar- Knowest thou not that Allah hath power over all things?"

'The Qur’an is not written in chronological order. It is possible however to link the different parts of the Qur’an to different periods of Mohammed’s life, each characterized by a slightly different philosophy. During the early part of his ministry in Mecca, his followers were few in number, and the peaceful passages all come from this period. During the Medinan period, his followers had grown in numbers, were stronger and much more influential and this is reflected in much more adversarial attitude. The third period, marked by the return to and conquest of Mecca gives us an altogether different picture of Islam and an intolerance of other religions. Surah 2.256 was thus abrogated by a later verse, composed after Mohammed had conquered Mecca and was preparing his new Muslim empire for Jihad against the non-Muslim world: "Slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush" (Surah 9.5). This "verse of the sword" not only abrogates 2.256, but also abrogates well over a hundred earlier verses that formerly taught peace and tolerance toward non-believers.'

Spence continues: 'When you look at Mohamed’s life in conjunction with the Qur’an and the Hadiths you can see a pattern that is reflected in the Islamic world today. In Islamic societies which are complete i.e. have some form of Shariah law and are therefore closest to Mohammed’s third period, you see these aggressive attitudes to other religions writ large. In those who are closest to the second period, such as the Mogul rule of India, there is more tolerance, and in those where Muslims are a minority, such as the UK and France the philosophy of the first period applies. In places like northern
Nigeria we are seeing a transition from stage two to stage three. Some argue that in the UK, France and Holland we are seeing a transition from stage one to stage two.'

Inayat Bunglawala, of the Muslim Council of Britain, also took issue with me, but from the opposite end of the debate. 'I disagreed with your conclusion that the Qur'an was contradictory about the fate of apostates,' he says. 'As I understand it, people have freedom in this life to choose whichever faith they want (hence the passage from the Qur'an 2:256 which you quoted) but the consequences of this choice will be faced in the next life. That is how I understand the passages about 'scalding water' etc.'

He continues: 'The issue of apostasy is an area, I believe, Muslim scholars do need to give urgent attention to. When the Prophet was at war with the pagan Quraysh, apostasy basically meant treason. Today's situation is very different and if someone wishes to convert to another faith they should be allowed to do so. That is how I understand the clear teaching in the Qur'an 2:256.'

On the cartoons, he acknowledges: 'It was always only a matter of time before the caricatures of the blessed Prophet Muhammad were reprinted in different publications here in the UK. My position has been that while it is undoubtedly true that publications have the right to reprint the caricatures ie it is not unlawful to do so, editors would be exercising their better judgement if they refrain from doing so. Republication of cartoons which are freely obtainable on the internet simply causes gratuitous hurt and plays into the hands of extremists who want to foment greater divisions between people.'

He too has his reservations about some of Prince Charles' comments, but again from the opposite end of the debate. Inayat says: 'The Prince's address is a plea for greater understanding and respect between peoples, especially between those in the Muslim world and the West, but also for minorities everywhere. He rightly draws attention to the worrying and increasingly anti-Muslim atmosphere in parts of Europe and the USA and compares that with the "harsh and degrading" conditions faced by some Christians in Muslim countries. One cannot but wholeheartedly agree with his call for members of the three Abrahamic faiths to work closer together to isolate extremists and ensure the promotion and survival of their core values. However, one should not avoid the fact that tackling extremism will also require the tackling of major injustices in the Middle East which provide fuel for extremists to propagate their violent message. Without that, all the goodwill in the world is unlikely to halt the spread of extremism.'

I wonder what Inayat is referring to by 'major injustices in the Middle East.' The treatment of women perhaps? Somehow, I don't think so.

Meanwhile, AFP today is reporting that a professor at the same institution where the Prince was speaking, the Al-Azhar university in Cairo,  is protesting about a film due to be shot in Egypt on the life of Jesus Christ. Abdel Mooti Bayumi said that the institution had issued fatwas, or religious edicts, against any 'depiction of the prophets',  which is the way Jesus is regarded in Islam. 'Al-Azhar rejects the depiction of Jesus in a film because Christ is not only the prophet of the Christians but also present in Islam.' But the film’s producer, Mohammed Ashub, said it was not the business of Al-Azhar, which has not issued an official protest, to interfere in the making of the movie. 'Al-Azhar does not have the right to intervene in something which concerns the Christians, otherwise it would have to tear down the icons of Christ and the Virgin Mary from churches,” he said.

Is the Cairo professor's call for yet another restriction on freedom of speech an example of the tolerance the Prince was pleading for? I don't think so. Is this the kind of person we need to be sticking up for Christianity? Of course not, but given the failure of the Protestant religion's traditional 'defenders' to do so adequately, I guess the likes of Prof Bayumi will have to do. So now we have this apotheosis of muddles, a Muslim professor calling for a fatwa on film about Jesus Christ, and the future Supreme Governor of the Church of England attacking those brave but unwise souls who published Muslim cartoons. Long Live Multiculturalism! At least there is some sanity coming from the Bishop of Rochester. Dr Nazir-Ali is tomorrow, Thursday, leading a debate in the House of Lords on the role of religion in world affairs, arguing that both Christianity and Islam must remain true to their missionary mandates while promoting peace and harmony rather than conflict.

Such intelligent idealism apart, it is all really such a terrible mess and as I contemplate the fate of that poor man stuck in his prison cell in Afghanistan, the temptation is to despair. Our great British Army is actually supporting a regime that can sanction that kind of thing. Can you believe it? I scarcely can. Frankly, the Trinity is an easier concept to grasp than that.

The Prince of Wales' own frustrated despairings are revealed in some of 'those letters', the wonderful kinds of green-ink scribblings that we journalists used to receive all the time in the mail, from people out there who weren't in general mad, but maddened and despairing and frustrated by obvious injustices of just the kind perpetrated at the furthest ends of religious extremes. And if you can't change the world when you're the future King of England, when can you change it?

Most people outside Buckingham, St James' and all the other palaces don't write these letters any more. They blog, they email, and to wonderful effect. It is this information revolution that is going ultimately to be the nemesis of tyranny, as the Chinese seem to understand all too well. The Prince of Wales should continue to condemn extremism. But he should also stop suing newspapers. Instead, he should carry on writing letters and giving speeches and, above all, get himself a blog on his website. He's a natural.  A blog would endear him to his future subjects in a way that no amount of litigation ever will. Someone should tell him - that spidery, green-ink stuff, it's all so very last century.

Comments

[Alistair McBay]

No offence taken, but thanks for the thought.

Claims that one school of thought is more prevalent than another, or that one school of thought is more moral than another, serve no useful purpose, as I am sure you will agree. I do feel however that there are a large number of people whom we both ignore, assuming "we both" is you the believer and me the atheist. These people may indeed believe in some sort of creator or supernatural agency (and are thus neither atheist nor agnostic) but nevertheless flatly reject the conflicting and nonsensical claims of successive organised religions to the "absolute and inviolate truth" about that creator and his/her/its purpose, or that he/she/it would deliver such conflicting messages in bizarre ways in different parts of the globe over several millennia!

These people, and I think there are significant numbers, are "floating voters", if you like, and often missed in the cut and thrust of UK debate about religion. It's a moot point as to how much thought any of them has given to the matter, or whether they can be dismissed as lacking in culture and devoid of values, a sentiment that smacks of typical religious arrogance.

As to the giving of thought to the matter, how many adult believers have genuinely done so, when they have been brainwashed into belief themselves by believing parents and faith schools from the earliest age? Why is it that some children grow up to retain and repeat this mantra, while others similarly exposed grow up to reject it?

Which, I wonder, has given the matter the most thought, in the final analysis?

[Keith Downer]

Apologies to Alistair McBay but I have only just read his comment on this issue. I obviously didn't make it clear that - in replying to Robin's comments - I was not implying that atheists and agnostics have not given the matter much thought but rather disputing Robin's claim that "Agnosticism and Atheism more truly reflect the feelings of the majority in today's UK". I was suggesting that rather than embracing Agnosticism and Atheism, the majority of people in the UK today had not given the matter much thought. In the same way, I was referring to - and expressing some agreement with - Robin's observation that this same majority of people in the UK today would also be "apathetic, lacking in culture and values". Again, not a direct reference to agnostics or atheists. Apologies again for any misunderstanding or offence taken.

[Alistair McBay]

Some of the comments in Mr Downer's post are breathtaking

"I don't believe, for example, that the majority of people in the UK, who you claim are embracing Agnosticism and Atheism, have actually given the matter much thought (in fact - if it came to an apocalypse scenario - it would almost certainly be those people leading the stampede to the nearest church)" he says.

Well, not this atheist for one, who has given the matter much thought and would happily stand and toast the superstitous with a good malt as they rushed lemming-like to the nearest altar as armageddon approached.

Mr Downer then says that most atheists and agnostics can be accused of "apathy" and "lacking in culture and values". I am not sure how culture comes into it, but lacking in values? Ah, yes, of course - the old claim that you can only be a moral citizen if you believe in the supernatural. But which version, and whose morals? Muslims' or Christians'? Bush's or Kember's? Ahmadinejad's or Sharon's? Williams' or Akinola's?

[Robin Bather]

To Keith Downer.
You have me in Check Mate!
I agree with all your points and as a gentleman cede defeat in this argument.
Well done.
Robin

[Tim Cooper]

Robin Bather thinks that the comments of non-believers are only tolerated within articles of faith. Since, in order to have meaning, faith cannot exist without doubt, the terms are not mutually exclusive. Religious belief does not exist within a vacuum,as world events reveal. The pronouncements from leaders of world faiths can legitimately be questioned and commented upon in the public domain, because their consequences effect a wider audience than their own autonomous communities. The Windsors lack legitimacy and should be excluded from interfering with politics. Acid or lightweight comments in my view add little to the debate.

[Tom Edwards]

As a principle, I would always advocate respect and tolerance for those people of any religion or faith. The one exception is fast becoming those Islamists who insist on following the more extremist interpretations of The Prophet's writings and sayings. How can you respect and tolerate a religion which issues a world-wide "contract", an order to murder, against an individual who just wrote something controversial related to Islam in a publication? Ask Salman Rushdie if he thinks Islam is a peaceful, tolerant religion. And what about the people who died in the demonstrations against the Danish cartoons?

With reference to an earlier comment, I would suggest that it is actually illogical to deny the possibility of Christian miracles such as the feeding of the five thousand. Even without divine involvement, I am sure that science fiction aficionados could think of a dozen ways in which such an unlikely event could have occurred - and history has taught us that today's science fiction can be tomorrow's fact! I wonder what someone, 100 years ago, who watched a man die of a heart attack on the street, would have thought when - after an injection and some heart massage or the use of a machine - that man came back to life!

Given the complexity and diversity of our world, it is also logically prudent - and perfectly possible - to consider that an intellect of supreme scope and capacity, a creator of unimaginable power is responsible. The alternatives - based on uncontrolled evolution, starting from some point, somewhere (nobody really knows) - are far more illogical.Call that creator, God; give him a brief presence in the midst of us, 2000 years ago and the performance of the impossible, the miraculous events depicted in the New Testament, and logically, you have to consider Christianity less of a fantasy.

[Robin Bather]

It seems that if and when Prince Charles becomes king the new coins will not bear the proud words FID DEF IND IMP.

His grandfather lost the IND IMP part years ago and now George (aka Charles) wants to renounce the FID DEF bit.

I don't know what the world is coming to, next they will be demanding that the Royal Family pay death duties and correctly calculated income tax on their personal income like the rest of us.

The country is going to the dogs!

[Keith Downer]

Having been an agnostic for most of my adult life - with many atheist friends - I can understand and respect your perspective Robin, but I learnt a long time ago that where faith is concerned, there is no argument that can be made to someone who doesn't want to believe, isn't ready to believe or who has already considered and dismissed most of the points that can be made. The confines of this blog also restrict any response to your dismissal of the logical path I might have taken on the road to belief.
Given that we are coming from different perspectives, it is obvious that we are going to disagree on many of the these issues. I don't believe, for example, that the majority of people in the UK, who you claim are embracing Agnosticism and Atheism, have actually given the matter much thought (in fact - if it came to an apocalypse scenario - it would almost certainly be those people leading the stampede to the nearest church). Apathy, lacking in culture and values, now that I would accept.
To answer your final question, Robin; if any of the belief-systems you mention threaten to disrupt our community and our way-of-life, then yes, I would include them. But, as far as I am aware, it is only Islam where there is any indication that this is happening. I am not aware that extremists of the Jewish faith or Quakers are exploding bombs on our transport system or on trial for planning such atrocities. Is there such a person as a Jehovah Witness suicide bomber? Christian education in our state school system has not been disrupted and, in many cases, abandoned because of the proportion of Mormon students in classes. School discipline has not been affected by Hindus demanding to wear a kurta as a uniform. We do not have provocative demonstrations of Sikhs on the streets of London because they consider they have been insulted or an abuse of freedom of speech has taken place.
Finally, if Graham Spence's insights are anything to go by, it is elements of the expanding Islamic community that we can expect to see - and may already be seeing - transit from an acceptable to an unacceptable manifestation of their faith in our society. I am unaware of the potential for such transition to occur in any of the religions you mention - especially those as stable and respected as Judaism and Hinduism. If the followers of Muhammad demonstrated the same degree of restraint as shown by the devotees of those other religions you list - and continued to do so - then my call for a counterbalance to the growing influence of Islamic beliefs on our society would be redundant and inappropriate.

[Robin Bather]

Well said Tim Cooper!
Ruth very kindly publishes our acid heathen comments, but after all is said and done, we are interlopers on this blog Tim as it's called "Articles of Faith" and Ruth is the Times Religion Correspondant.
No mention of "no-religion" there.

In keeping with everybody who bleats nowadays that they are "excluded" (for example the twits who complain when I, as an Atheist, say Merry Christmas!....I flatly refuse to say Happy Holidays) shouldn't we proud Atheists band together to find a word that includes us?

Maybe "Ruth Gledhill, Times Religion, Agnosticism & Atheism Correspondant" ?
It doesn't have a ring to it though, does it?
"Religion & Secular Correspondant" seems an absurd contradiction of terms which are so polarised.

[Tim Cooper]

Well done Alastair McBay for identifying the absolute right of all non-believers to exist peacefully in a world that is not torn apart by religon. It is preposterous that humanists, atheists and others with a secular view should be criticised, targeted, or discriminated against simply because they refuse to accept the crackpot theories of others claiming the moral high ground. It seems to me that to live in peace, mutually, morally and in a way that regenerates the planet, far outweighs the dubious ideologies and dogma which consistently threatens society.The sensibilites of those of us not prepared to engage in religious rancour and divisive argument are equally sacrosanct, Charles Windsor notwithstanding.

[Margaret Elward]

If Prince Charles does not want to recognize Christianity alone as the faith of this country he should never become king of this nation. Being tollerant of other religions is one thing but to have a monarch who says He will defend them and their faiths is quite another thing. Oil and water do not mix. There is one true God,and only one access to Him, through the Lord Jesus Christ,as stated in our Bible and in the constitution of our land. If our future Monarch cannot adhere to this we would be better off without a King.

[tonymixan]

The more I learn about Islam,the more I reject it; its 1400 years of recorded history is one of uber-blood baths.

[Gareth]

Graham Spence has come to much the same conclusion as everyone else who has studied islam. As soon as Mohammed has a substantial following, he became a tribal chief, with the ability to recruit converts into a tribe based on religion rather than clan. He led his followers in 60-70 raids, battles and sieges. He became rich through conquest, plunder and slavery.
The legacy he left is a religion that is instinctively at war with every other religion and culture; Holy War is a religious duty for every muslim.
The future of the human race now depends on persuading the world's muslims to walk away from islam before the jihad goes nuclear.

[Robin Bather]

Thank you for your comments Keith, I would like to address your comments as briefly as possible given the confines of this blog.

We all know of the pitifully low church attendance in the UK and I feel that this reflects a nation where Christianity is at an all time low and the future of this religion is not so robust as you think.
I believe that Agnosticism and Atheism more truly reflect the feelings of the majority in today's UK. Some would also add apathetic, lacking in culture and values.

The religious freedom that you mention is something to be proud of and I would be the first person to fight for your rights in this area however that other wonderful achievement, freedom of expression, that you mention is quite different and owes nothing to organised religion. It probably owes more to Voltaire and the French Revolution. I would also fight for it.

Christianity has many fine rules for Life like the second half of the Ten Commandments, and the parables that teach us good lessons in a rather childlike way. However when the Bible starts to talk of the seas opening, the few loaves and fishes feeding 5,000 people, water turned into wine, the Virgin birth and the Resurrection.......I just cannot continue with you into this fantasy land and must question your logic (whilst admiring your computer programming skills).

The faith that you value so much is nothing more than an innocent and non questioning belief in things which cannot be proven, and many religious folk use this as a convenient prop when logic is exhausted.

I fully agree with you that today's England lacks cohesion and a value system (that I certainly had as a child in outer London) but I believe that the law and good humanistic values are sufficient to hold a society together although I admit that I cannot offer a good substitute for a heart warming Christmas carol service!

You feel that Religion has been hyjacked in some way and the true believers are innocent of the sins committed in their name by malevolent or evil people. That may be, however to me it sounds like a cop out and very similar to the excuse of the Nazis who were "only obeying orders".

Finally Keith, I would like to ask you, does your desire to counterbalance the influence of alien belief-systems include Jehovas Witnesses, Quakers, Mormons, Jews, Hindus and Sihks as well as Atheists and Mohammadans?

[irene lancaster]

Dear Malcolm

Thank you so much for your latest posting, which moved me tremendously. I agree with you that we should all work together and learn from each other and I have certainly learned a great deal from your remarkable response.

[Simon Ferguson]

Interested to see the breadth of comment on this blog! Aaah, the scent of liberal pluralism... it's so good to see that complex of multifacted diversity... out in the open!I hope it keeps us all a little more honest & humble?

[Malcolm Bowden]

I'm truly chastened, Irene. I must guard against "broad brush" approaches and glib generalisations that seem quite apt at the time. You are right to reproach me and, to set the record straight, may I say that I do accept the spirituality of Judaism and the great Talmudic and Rabbininc traditions and of course the enormous contribution made by it to Christian spirituality.

I have said elsewhere, and I mean it, that Christians must find solidarity with Jews and I was truly distraught at the way the Anglican Church behaved in the matter of the Catterpillar shares affair. I am also troubled by the way so many of our leaders seem ever willing to cosy up to Islam - out of a misplaced liberal idealism no doubt - whilst criticising Israel in a way which can easily be seen as anti-Semitic.

You are right to point out that Christians have behaved appallingly towards Jews over the centuries and we need deparately to make amends and accept each other in friendship, as family even. What we have in common is far far more than our differences.

[Keith Downer]

In response to Robin's comments, I am not sure that "fear" is an emotion I have when it comes to the future of Christianity. Given the 2,000 years of history, survival through schism, regular persecution and apparent apathy, I think globally we are still in good shape. I would also suggest that it does not necessarily demonstrate a lack of respect if you emphasise the strength and pre-eminence of your own belief or express concern about the beliefs of someone else.
Everyone in the UK has the opportunity and right to follow and express their beliefs - or lack of belief - as they wish (opportunities and rights that sadly, are not allowed in many Islamic countries). I respect the freedom we have in the UK, a freedom protected and preserved throughout our history, providing the opportunity we enjoy today to enter into this debate.
As far as logic is concerned, my faith in Jesus Christ did not manifest itself until I was 40 years old. I like to think that logic played a significant part when investigating, questioning and understanding the transition from agnostic to believer. It is difficult to work in the IT industry developing software for mainframe and personal computers for over 30 years without developing a certain logical and analytical approach to your work. As my wife often complains, this does tend to spill over into most other areas of your life as well.
Faith is not the exclusive province of the uncertain, the unorganised, the fragile and the fearful and those not capable of rational thought. Far from being the root of all evil, I believe faith is a protection and salvation from the wickedness that exists in the world. I will accept that religion per se has been the root cause of much upheaval and distress - both historically and at the present time. This is usually due to the distortion, misrepresentation and misinterpretation of fundamental teachings, ignorance and sometimes fuelled by the desire of malevolent or disturbed individuals wishing to control the inherent desire of all men and women to believe in something greater than themselves and give a meaning to life.
I do not anticipate a time when Christians in the UK will suffer the same fate as those Christians living in Islamic countries throughout the world. Neither am I fearful that Islamic extremists will successfully disrupt our community though violence and protest. My concerns focus on the dilution and weakening of our social values and standards of behaviour which, in the absence of any commonly-held belief system such as Christianity, appears inevitable. Secular and humanist values - idealistically admirable though they may be - are no substitute. They don't satisfy that inherent, deeply ingrained need for belief that exists in all mankind - well, nearly all - and they are too nebulous to provide any reference structure to guide how you should lead your life.
Whether you have faith in Jesus Christ or not, there is no denying that in the UK, our modern society has an heritage founded in Christian values and teaching which, both socially and morally, provides a stable, secure framework and structure to our valued way-of-life. There may well be some people who can live a worthwhile and rewarding life without acceptance of any belief-system but if a group of people are to live together in peace and harmony, there has to be an underlying, cohesive structure of values and standards, understood, believed and respected by everyone. Many of the problems we experience in our society today result from a breakdown of this principle and it is with that understanding that I look for a strengthening of Christianity in our nation to address the expanding sense of apathy and counterbalance the growing influence of alien belief-systems.

[Dr. Irene Lancaster PGCE, Dept. Religions and Theology, Manchester University]

Oh dear: for a country in which interest in RE is growing and study of religions other than one's own is being encouraged, some of your contributors seem to need a bit of a refresher course. Malcom may be right in much of what he has to say, but defining Judaism as 'a set of rules' is not how I would define it.

Do you really think, Malcolm that a religion as oppressed and demeaned as Judaism would have survived were it merely a 'set of rules'? For much of the time, Christians like yourself prevented us from sticking to what you call 'rules', but we still survived. For someone living in the 21st century, you seem to be surprisingly unaware of your own Christian scholarship on the matter, let alone have a clue about what we Jews think of our own religion.

Because this is a family blog, I am not going to say what we Jews really think of some parts of the Church at the moment,save to say that it could learn an awful lot from the meekness and mildness of Judaism. This is why the very many Jewish readers of Ruth's blog will sigh at Malcolm's posting and say: 'Oh well, what can you expect of the Christian Church. Maybe, if we keep our heads down, they will go away and forget about us'.

Unfortunately, as someone who works with Christians professionally every day of her life, I cannot afford to allow misrepresentations of Judaism to go unchallenged. But I much prefer what the Dalai Lama has said about Judaism: he has said that the experience of Shabbat is like experiencing Vipassana meditation and that the Jews have 'learned the secret of survival in exile and should teach it to others'. The last time I met him, he was preaching in Liverpool's Anglican Cathedral, and whilst being gently critical of Christianity, waxed lyrical about Judaism.

Otherwise, I agree with everything Malcolm has to say in his latest posting, especially as Judaism teaches that 'this life is but a corridor to the world to come'.

[Robin Bather]

I couldn't help smirking at Ruth's tart comment that Prince Charles' handwriting is "spidery".
I have no idea if his handwriting style was acquired at Cheam, Gordonstoun or at home in the Palace, but if I had this type of handwriting, the last thing I would do would be to advertise it to all and sundry by scribbling notes on other people's correspondence and permitting it to be published.
I now understand Ruth's anguish that her son might end up in a school with a poor academic level.
Charles should be made to write out 500 times "I must improve my handwriting".

[Malcolm Bowden]

This debate is both supremely interesting and fundamental to those of us who are concerned with the relationship between religion and society. I suspect I am not alone in finding myself torn in two directions. I am a Christian and I am a liberal. As a Christian I am obliged to say, publicly if need be, that there is only one Way, Truth and Life and this is Jesus Christ. Christianity is not just one of a range of options. It is true. It is unique. We can, and do, argue for ever about the small print but fundamentally all Christians have to say that there is only one route to the Father and that is through Jesus Christ.

However, as a liberal I have to extend freedom of thought and expression to others, including those whose religion is at odds with mine and which I cannot accept as valid. I have to be tolerant. But that tolerance cannot go as far as saying something like "we all believe in the same God so why not forget our differences and concentrate on what we have in common". Hence I feel uncomfortable when I hear, more and more often it seems, bishops talking in these kinds of terms, referring to the Abrahamic faiths, our common ancestry and so on. It seems like a primrose path - very touchy-feely but ultimately leading to dilution of the message and disaster.

The Christian gospel claims to be unique; it took root and spread through the Roman Empire without state support, indeed in spite of state persecution, because it was perceived to be true and because of the character of those who preached it, I suspect. Christianity is not a set of rules; this is where we part company with the Jews. It is not a religion of this world; that is where we diverge from Islam.

We have to live on the world, I accept; but we do not have to be of the world. Our home, ultimately, is elsewhere and that is the message we need to spread. We need to be the salt which savours the world not the salt that is rub in the wound. So we must argue against injustice against anyone, Christian or not, we must look for tolerance and preach its virtue. And all the time we must love our neighbour and our enemy and turn the other cheek.

Not an easy task. But it was never supposed to be.

[Bartholomew]

The monarchy has been multiculural since 1603 - Supreme Governor of the episcopal Church of England while at the same time being a member of the presbyterian Church of Scotland. And I believe that Prince Philip is worshipped as a god somewhere out in the Pacific...

[ralph ellis]

Dear Ruth,

There are many contradictions in the Koran, but under the doctrine of 'naskh' it is the warlike Medina verses that take precedence. Thus when you hear peaceful verses being touted by immams they are being highly economical with the truth, for those verses do not count.

Regards
Ralph Ellis

[Revd David Baker]

Ruth, thank you very much for a thoughtful and measured article. Tolerance extends both ways: men and women must be granted the freedom to convert from Islam in Muslim lands and to practice the Christian faith, just as Muslims in the west are free to practice their faith. When, for example, will Saudi Arabia grant real freedom of faith?

[Robin Bather]

I have read with interest the remarks of Ruth, Keith and the Prince of Wales, each who have their own worries about the future of their own religion or the religion of others, and the oft quoted fear of looming Islam with its own fears of Christianity.
The clear lack of respect so typical of organised religions, each professing to have the only True Faith whilst defending their own beliefs from real or imaginary attacks from heathens.
Alistair McBay comes closest to the only logical humane answer which is to have a secular society throughout the world.
Maybe one day all this fear and the hatred that often accompanies it, will disappear and in its place we will have true humanist values--love, understanding and most of all logic.
Not wanting too offend anyone, I will however say that the older I get the more I am convinced that religion is the root of all evil.
John Lennon aptly put it in his famous song "Imagine".

[Keith Downer]

Prince Charles will have to be careful not to confuse his natural desire to be conciliatory with his inherited responsibility to the Christian faith that provides the foundation and structure of the nation that he is soon to rule. As a contemporary of the Prince, I understand and accept his approach and response to many of the issues that give rise to debate in the world today but on one thing we clearly differ; a true belief in Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior and an acceptance of Christianity as the one, true faith.
Prince Charles has demonstrated an obsession with "multiculturalism" and - for a man of his experience and intelligence - an inexplicable blindness on the relationship between a commonly-held belief system and the cohesion, stability and prosperity of a group, a community or a nation.
I did find Graham Spence's insights enlightening, especially his comments on Mohamed’s life in conjunction with the Qur’an and the Hadiths. I accept it is a simplistic view but his views on stages of transition do clarify to some extent the contradictions when trying to relate the calm, peaceful attitude of one's Muslim friends in the UK with - for example - the more frantic, fanatical gatherings on the streets of Pakistan.
Graham's insights also sound a warning. When looking for a perspective on Islam, you could choose any one of the three stages described by him and depending on the size and strength of the Islamic community involved, come to completely the wrong conclusion. The suggestion is that as the community increases in size - becoming less of a minority - transition between stages occurs and what were reasonable, acceptable influences upon our society's way-of-life become more aggressive, more volatile and less acceptable. The horrific tragedy of July 7th 2005 and the upsetting protest in London following the Danish cartoon issue may well be examples of the early stages of this transition.
Having lived in London for nearly 60 years, I am generally proud of the tolerance and acceptance shown by the populace to people from foreign cultures and beliefs. With a few exceptions, the community has adapted intelligently and peacefully. It is therefore no wonder that Prince Charles has developed into someone who epitomises the idealistic thinker of the 21st century, embracing the concepts of multiculturalism and unrestricted movement across national borders.
The wake-up call came on September 11th 2001, 8:45am New York time. Islamic fundamentalist terrorists gave a demonstration of their distorted view of Islam that goes beyond Graham Spence's third stage, possibly even qualifying as a stage four.
The Islamic community in the UK will grow and become more established, less of a minority. If you accept Graham Spence's analysis where stages of Islamic belief are concerned, we can no longer rely on those who follow Mohamed to continue to practice their faith adhering to the philosophy of peace and tolerance taught by The Prophet during the early period of his life. As the future King of a Christian nation, it is incumbent upon the Prince of Wales to strength Christianity as a response and in preparation for such a transition when it occurs. If he is unable to do this, he should not ascend to the throne.

[Alistair McBay]

Inayat is worried about Islamophobia, while Ruth is worried who will protect Christians. Last year the Vatican raised as an issue with the UN the subject of "Christianophobia", so someone's on the case, Ruth.

But what about "seculaphobia"? What about those of us either with no faith or agnostic (probably the majority of UK citizens) who apparently have no choice but endure the Koran's call for us to be slaughtered, and always end up caught in the middle of organised religions either as targets for conversion (a religious right, of course) or targets for discrimination, and worse?

Is it right that Muslims, Catholics and others have the right to discriminate against women and gays, secular or not, while also having the right not to be discriminated against themselves? Is it right that Sir Iqbal Sacranie can accuse gays of spreading disease, while gays have to endure such homophobia because it is enshrined in law that Sir Iqbal can say these things with impunity? How far would a gay person get if he/she accused Islam of promoting and spreading terrorism?

The values of a secular state and of secular people - reason, rationality, freedom of expression - are just as sacred to us as the prophet is to Islam. Who will defend our rights against oppression from Mr Bunglawala's religion, and all other religions?

[Mustafa Feeroz]

Islam gave women the right to inherit and own property 1400 years ago. The Prophet declared distinctly that every Muslim man and Muslim woman has a compulsion to seek knowledge - fully 13 centuries before anything of the like was to be seen in the West. His own first wife (15 years his senior and to whom he remained monogamous until her death) was a successful businesswoman in her own right. He states that paradise lies at the feet of mothers, gives them the right to choose to conceive and to seek divorce. Christianity gives no such leeway and women are treated appalingly in many many societies across the globe - indeed in this country domestic abuse is the most often reported and least policed of all crimes. You are welcome to consider the liberation of western women from shame and modesty as being a leap forward if you wish but please stop casting your veil of misinformation over true Islamic attitudes to women.

[Ashar J Khokhar]

I do agree with the comment that Muslims in Europe are treated unfairly, and I blame this on Muslims. The Muslims in Europe and America should also look at the Christians in Muslim countries. The constitution of 99% Muslim countries bar Christians from taking up any so called sensitive position in that country because Christians are considered as enemies of Islam. The Christians in Muslim countries receive worst as compared to the Muslims in Europe and America, for at least they are put into prision for preaching their faith, they are not punished for converting Christians or followers of other religions to Islam. They receive equal treatment in the state run system (which does not exist in Muslim countries).
I would like to ask, how many churches or places of worship have been build in the oil rich kingdoms (officially Islamic countries) while these have been spending billions of dollars in building mosques and religious schools in Europe, Australia and North America. The expats have been living there for over 40 years now, and still they dont have a place to worship according to their belief.

[Inayat Bunglawala]

I share Ruth's concern about the often appalling treatment of women in parts of the Muslim world, but I doubt that it is a main factor behind the growth in violent extremism, which is what I was trying to address in my remarks.