It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Koran Should be Read at Prince Charles' Coronation says Top Bishop

page: 2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 01:45 PM
a reply to: camain

I'm British...
Don't have a problem with it...

Wouldn't have a problem if they read a Jewish prayer either...

I think a leader should accommodate all their people...
Especially since Muslims have fought and died in pretty much every major British war for the last century...

but islam damn well does teach that.

The Quran says different...

So you're just another ATS member who thinks they know about Islam when in fact they know close to nothing.

Just another ATS member who believes the media over an actual Muslim...

And it doesn't surprise me in the slightest.

Its insulting for everyone british

& the 5% of the British population that are Muslim?

Forget them yeah...

posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 03:56 PM

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
& the 5% of the British population that are Muslim?

Forget them yeah...

Yeah, they believe in stuff which has as little testable evidence to support it as Christians do...none. of course.
As a Kaffir I support your religion's involvement in UK politics as much as I do Christians (ie Zero), Christian beliefs have no more merit than your Islamic faith and it is rather tragic that religion is involved in any way at all in the government of the UK.
edit on 4Sat, 29 Nov 2014 16:40:50 -0600pm40112014f50pm11 by grainofsand because: Typo - governent to government

posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 06:32 PM
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

I agree.......and for the 30% of England residents that are atheists or list no religion, should also be mentioned in the coronation.

So it will go..

"I am the King of England, God save the King (that includes you Muslim lot, my Church of England God is greater than your Allah, so there), now bow down to me...

And to you whom don't believe in God....Peace be with you, but you still gotta pay taxes, OK."

There, that includes the Moslims and should appease their sensibilities.

posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 06:42 PM
a reply to: Jainine

In short


posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 06:58 PM
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Yea I think I got a pretty good Idea of Islam considering my mother was a foreign aid advisor and the college recruited out of the middle east for 8 years of my life. further, I did study the Quran, and honestly, while its a great book with lots of moral teaching, the issue isn't the Quran, the issue is the barbaric tribal societies that are anti-western infiltrating western society bringing there customs and belief along with them refusing to assimilate and basically making there own little piece of the middle east in whatever country allows them to breed in. Do I have issue with moderate muslims, absolutely not, Loved the Kuwaiti's I met, as well as the the U.A.E. boys, as well as the Turks and Jordanians. That said the Saudi's were weird, and the Iran guy was one of the most extremist guys I met and even at 12 I didn't want to be around him at all. Am I stereotyping, absolutely because the reality is any nation that has a muslim majority has all the other religions persecuted either by state law, or by the society in general. Islam belongs in the middle east, they and the Jews can fight that out, but Europe and the Americas belong to Christianity in all its different forms. You want to life in Europe, assimilate. you want to bring Sharia go to Saudi Arabia.



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 07:32 PM
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

This is exactly what the worldwide Islamic community is driving for. Another step towards total Islamic states in the west and people like this Bishop are just helping it right along.

When Muslims here in Australia demanded Sharia Law be implemented, the PM told them to live by our standards and our laws or Piss Off..!!

I personally don't think too much of Abbott, but in this instance he came through for Australia.

British and French politicians should follow suit or face a total Sharia future.

edit on 29-11-2014 by Ironclad2000 because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 08:06 PM

originally posted by: Ironclad2000
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

This is exactly what the worldwide Islamic community is driving for. Another step towards total Islamic states in the west and people like this Bishop are just helping it right along.

When Muslims here in Australia demanded Sharia Law be implemented, the PM told them to live by our standards and our laws or Piss Off..!!

I personally don't think too much of Abbott, but in this instance he came through for Australia.

British and French politicians should follow suit or face a total Sharia future.

The problem is that these "politicians" will drag us down with them into this sharia crap. I fully agree, when you go to a country, you assimilate, you don't try to change it, if you don't like it, go back from whence you came. We have that problem in Canada, all of our PM's have been spineless garbage that cowtow to the international banksters and flood the country with useless immigrants that keep demanding that Canada be more like hole they escaped from.

But for Abbott, to even suggest that the koran should be read at any future british monarch's coronation, is pretty much treason to the church. Of course I would never want to see charles crowned, that would be too ridiculous for words, I'd like to see the legitimized convention of inbreeding simply go the way of the dinosaurs.

Cheers - Dave

posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 10:16 PM

originally posted by: Jainine
This story covers religion, politics, and a royal family. A trifecta!

UK - Koran Should be Read at Prince Charles' Coronation says Top Bishop

Prince Charles’s coronation service should be opened with a reading from the Koran, a senior Church of England bishop said yesterday.
The gesture would be a ‘creative act of accommodation’ to make Muslims feel ‘embraced’ by the nation, Lord Harries of Pentregarth said.

But critics attacked the idea, accusing the Church of ‘losing confidence’ in its own institutions and traditions. Lord Harries, a former Bishop of Oxford and a leading CofE liberal thinker, said he was sure Charles’s coronation would give scope to leaders of non-Christian religions to give their blessing to the new King.

Isn't the King of England supposed to be the Head of the Church of England? I'm not sure I understand why would the head of a religion (any religion) would want to have passages read from a religious book that they don't believe in. In the past, Prince Charles has said that he wants to be known as 'Defender of Faith' instead of the traditional 'Defender of THE Faith'. And he has said that he felt the Catholic, Islamic, Hindu and Zoroastrian subjects are just as important as the Protestant ones. I suppose if he goes for the suggestion, this would be a part of that outreach. I'm wondering how British citizens will feel about it.

Does it even matter anymore who is the King or Queen of England? Do they have any real power? Is the symbolic that important? I know they are a tourist attraction and part of British tradition, but it looks like the tradition part is starting to get watered down. With the watering down, the tourist attraction part goes away. Should Charles even be crowned? Would the Queen pass Charles by and go straight to William? Could England stand having a Queen Camilla?

Is the call for reading the Koran at the next coronation a nod to a more diverse British population, or is it appeasement in the tradition of Chamberlain? Would Islamic governments and entities see it as a positive gesture or would they see it as their religion gaining a foothold in Britain and this would further their own global goals?

More questions than answers.
But it's an interesting topic to discuss.

I believe Prince Charles said "Defender of faiths", plural, but I'm not positive.

The British monarch can, among other things, declare war or peace; conclude treaties; convoke, adjourn, remove, and dissolve Parliament; appoint a Prime Minister of her/his own choosing; dismiss the Prime Minister and his government; choose and appoint all judges, councillors, officer of state; initiate criminal proceedings; bestow pardons; refuse the Royal Assent; refuse to dissolve Parliament when requested by the Prime Minister; choose and appoint all Archbishops, Bishops, and ecclesiastical dignitaries, exercise refusal of the Queen's or King's Consent required for a bill affecting the prerogative, hereditary revenues or personal properties or interests of the Crowns to be heard in Parliament; and create peerages or bestow Orders of Chivalry.

Of course Charles should ascend to the throne. The Queen does not have the power to bypass or appoint anyone to the throne. It's an hereditary right. When Charles ascends to the throne, Camilla will not be reigning Queen, she will be Queen Consort. Why shouldn't the British people "stand" her, not that they have a choice? There's absolutely no reason to believe she will be anything but good at the job. Her job will be to support the King and perform ceremonial duties. She's already providing considerable support to Charles and performing ceremonial duties. Being the monarch is a horrendous job. He'll need all the support he can get. Why would anyone want an unhappy monarch?

The chance that the Koran will be read at the coronation is somewhat less than zero. Virtually every part of the coronation is steeped in ancient tradition including the annointing which, contrary to the popular opinion that it's the crowning, is when the heir actually becomes the monarch. The annointing is a Christian ritual considered so sacred that it wasn't viewed by the public on TV during Elizabeth II's coronation.

It is possible that Charles, prior to or following the coronation, will attend some sort of multi-faith event or issue some statement about inclusion but he's not about to jeopardize the monarchy to which he's devoted his life.

The question of whether there should even be a monarchy is a separate issue.

posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 03:34 AM

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: Shiloh7

Forcibly converting people to Islam is forbidden by the Quran!
The Quaran seems to be ambiguous at best on that topic. Are you thinking of verse 2:256 -"Let there be no compulsion in religion..."?

The way I read it, you are right, there is no compulsion to convert to Islam in the Quran; there is another die. I'm not too fond of either option.

Forced conversion


Are Muslims permitted to force others into accepting Islam?

Summary Answer:

Muslims are commanded to fight unbelievers until they are either dead, converted to Islam, or in a permanent state of subjugation under Muslim domination. Allowing people of other faiths to live and worship independently of Islamic rule is not an option.

The Qur'an:

Qur'an (8:39) - “And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah Alone [in the whole of the world ]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allah), then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do.” Translation from the Noble Quran

Qur'an (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." Suras 9 and 5 are the last "revelations" that Muhammad handed down - hence abrogating what came before, which includes the oft-quoted verse 2:256 -"Let there be no compulsion in religion...".

Qur'an (9:5) "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them..." Prayer and charity are among the Five Pillars of Islam, as salat and zakat. See below. Islam sanctions violence as a means of coercing religion.

Qur'an (9:11) - (Continued from above) "But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then are they your brethren in religion" This confirms that Muhammad is speaking of conversion to Islam.

Quran (9:56-57) - "And they swear by Allah that they are most surely of you, and they are not of you, but they are a people who are afraid (of you). If they could find a refuge or cave or a place to enter into, they would certainly have turned thereto, running away in all haste." This refers to people living among Muhammad's own people who may not be true believers, but have to pretend to be in order to survive. They have no safe refuge to which to escape the Muslims. If Islam were a religion of peace, then why the fear?

Qur'an (2:193) - "And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion be only for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrong-doers." The key phrase is to fight until "religion be only for Allah."

Qur'an (3:83) - "Are they seeking a religion other than Allah's, when every soul in the heavens and the earth has submitted to Him, willingly or by compulsion?" So much for the earlier verse (2:256) stating that there is "no compulsion in religion".
That link has hundreds of examples of forced conversions, and passages from the Hadith along similar lines.

I don't think the Koran Should be Read at Prince Charles' Coronation, especially not that last verse Qur'an (3:83).

edit on 30-11-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 04:24 AM
a reply to: Jainine

In what alternate universe does Prince Charles become king?

posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 06:01 AM
a reply to: Jainine

If this were to happen... it would seem like the Royal Family are submitting themselves gradually to this 'Religion'... it would almost seem like 'Islam' has won and made its way right into the heart of England.

Why not read something from the 'Buddhist' Faith instead?

having said the above, I'm not a fan of the 'Royals', so better for them to step down and we have no 'Monarchy' at all. It's the 21st Century after all... but yet I see that 'William & Kate' will have 2 young ones to continue the 'Family' line.

I don't think 'Harry' is too happy about that either.

posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 06:21 AM
To be honest, I don't really have a problem with this.

If religious tolerance and the cohesiveness of British society is something Charlie wants to focus on during his reign, then spending 30 seconds giving a nod the second biggest religion in the Commonwealth is probably a fair way to start it.

Both religion and monarchy is a nonsense in my opinion, but neither are going away.

posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 06:27 AM
Aren't they jumping the gun a bit? Queen Elizabeth may outlive Charles (her mum lived to well over a hundred years old), and make his coronation ceremony a thing of alternate history fiction.

posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 07:13 AM
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

You could try telling that to the Yazidis and the others who are facing a gun with convert, forcibly marry or die cr-p. No other religion behaves in this way so why should islam if its about peace and love?

What islam is supposed to be told to us by its followers is oned thing, but what one sees islamics doing by its real adherents is quite another. I am surprised you don't see the difference - not being derogatory deliberately, just telling it how i see it playing out in the world, which is the real islam when one faces loosing people moronically blown apart by some nasty little murderer who didn't evey know its victims.

posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 07:22 AM
a reply to: camain

Christianity comes from exactly the same place as Islam neither is British.
And muslim are only guests if they aren't British. Religion is a choice so any nationality can be any faith.
I'm not for it though, as only zbout 10% of the population see themselves as Muslim.

posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 08:00 AM
Reading the history of the world for the last 200 years, to me, it seems that monarchies seem to do a bit better than so called democracies, Europe in particular, The Kaiser abdicated, Hitler came along, The Italian king abdicated, how many changes of government since 1945? The Rumanian king fled,= communism, King Peter of Yugoslavia fled, = communism, not sure about Greece, it used to have a monarchy, I know it had a civil war post 1945, Communists and 'the others' .

posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 08:21 AM
a reply to: Arbitrageur

It's not ambiguous when you read the whole thing in order...

Cherry picking verses is exactly what does...

They won't give you the verse previous or following the ones they unsuitably choose because it would debunk their theory...

I'll give an example of the one you find the most disturbing pal...

How about 3:81
"When Allah made the Prophets enter into a covenant, saying "if I give you a book and wisdom, then comes to you a messenger...
Verifying what is with you, you shall have to believe him/her, and shall support him/her".
He said "Do you affirm and respect my covenant in this respect?".
They said "We affirm!".
He said "Then bear witness, and I am among you as a witness".

3:82 "Then those who turn their back after this, are sinners!".

3:83 "Are they then, seeking another religion other than that of Allah, (Jewish Christian Muslim), while to him alone submit all those in the Heavens and the Earth, willingly (Humans & Jinn) or unwillingly (Angels)...
& to Him they shall be returned".

8:34 "Say, "We believe in Allah and in what has been revealed to us, and what was revealed to Abraham, Isaac, Ishmael, Jacob & the descendents, and to what has been given to Moses, Jesus & the Prophets, from their Lord...
We do not differentiate between them; and to Him we submit ourselves".

3:85 "Whoever seeks a faith other than Islam, it will never be accepted by Him...
& he, in the hereafter, will be among the losers".

So now you have a breakdown of 2 verses before & 2 after the one you shared...
You see it in its full context and it is far from ambiguous...

This can be done with all those on

posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 08:39 AM
a reply to: Shiloh7

Are IS Muslims now?

That's not for me to say...

Do they represent Islam?

That would be a no.

I feel for the Yazidis everyday, and others that are being subjugated by IS & others like Al Qaeda...

But you have to remember the biggest death toll so far has been in the Muslim community...
Slaughtered by the village...

They're who I see as the true martyrs and Jihadists, not IS.

posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 09:46 AM
I am not looking forward to German Charlie becoming King. He's going to be a bloody disaster.

posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 09:52 AM
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

German Charlie? What?

top topics

<< 1    3  4 >>

log in