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

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.

a reply to: Jainine

I'd be curious to see what the Brits have to say about that. That said, as an American, I think that bishop needs tossed, this is the problem in the western world, catering and allowing Islam to flourish, while at the same time NO ISLAMIC NATION allows this to happen. Ridiculous, the muslims coming into Britian are guests, and if they choose to be citizens fine, but they damn well should assimilate. Why cant a nation like Britian not stay british? why allow them to lose there cultural identity? why is it ok for the Japanese and Chinese, and Saudi Arabia, but yet a predominantly white nation isn't allowed to do that. I disagree with this completely, but then again, I am anti-globalization too.

a reply to: Jainine

Isn't the idea of islam to convert the world? Aren't we all supposed to be flocking to the religion of love, rape and murder and even better second class citizenship for all women and children? Also how does the bishop think people view islam after the slaughter of Lee Rigby on our streets by islamics? Does he think we would welcome any acknowledgement of islam. Sure we get the soppy apologists for it but simply look around the world at whose responsible for pure savagery - do we want to welcome it here because it can degenerate into sharia law and stoning and beheadings before you blink.

That Bishop must be out of his head because he clearly isn't in touch with people in this nation. We are already overrun by foreigners. And importantly have never been asked if we wanted to participate in this cultural soup that britain is being turned into. Islam is one the religions that is threatening world peace and any acknowledgement of it weakens those who ultimately become its victims.

We don't even know if charlie will become the next king because royalty is not as popular as it use to be and many see the money given to one of the richest families in the world, from the public purse as miss spent, especially when the Queen mother died owing near £1,000,000 in gambling debts. They know their time is coming up to leave, as we would never had had a royal calendar selling the latest set of royals - No 4 in the waiting list for the throne for free - that alone says they are trying to sell the pretty couple with the cute little boy. Its nothing personal but they are something from the past that needs to be left there, although probably trying to extract them from the wealth of jewels and property the british throne holds - which is really owned by the british public, will be somewhat of a heavy task as they will claw onto everything bit of trinket they can. I would be very interested to know what exactly this family bought with them in terms of wealth when they first arrived, or was it all simply given to them?

a reply to: Jainine

What Camain said! Britain is Britain and should not be overwhelmed by muslims or changed into something it isn't.

But I would also add that the monarchy is pointless. It's a bunch of inbred public welfare cases that suck down more money than a large town full of crack addicts. Charles has already shown himself to be a twit and that pair of horse faced wankers couldn't put a good shine on anything, they are already tainted. Charles as king and Camilla as consort, ROFLMAO!

If the queenie has to continue with this charade, one of Charles sons would be best, at least they have some new blood in them and are genetically distanced at least a little bit from the line of monarchistic ninja turtles.

However to be fair and save a little money, they need to get rid of all the castles and crap and put the next monarch up in a nice little two bedroom flat above a bar in Wilkshire ;-)

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: Jainine

It's a silly idea and would never be accepted by the British people , personally I'd rather no coronation after our current Queen but that too is a pipe dream.

As a Muslim, it may seem any input I have would be biased...

With that said I'd like to know which portion of the Quran they are talking about.


In Islam our Leaders are meant to be our go-to guys & gals...


So I'd appreciate a nod from the Future king in that respect...

a reply to: Shiloh7

Forcibly converting people to Islam is forbidden by the Quran!

Isn't the idea of islam to convert the world?

...so no!

Christian leaders need to denounce any fundamental religion that has brutal works, theocracies and fascism over freedom and mistreats women and children, corporally punishes anyone for ideas, what they believe, or for personal behaviors that are not their concern.

Christian leaders who do this are satanic.

the Queen is the head of the church of England, this is disgusting.

We are a Christian country

I don't like the Monarchy, and its my opinion that to call England a Christian country pretty much only benefits the Monarchy, as pointed out by the OP the cat in the crown is supposed to be the head of Christianity on these shores. The arguments for it being tradition, however, irates me no end, as its a fairly recent (in the grater scale of our Albion) that Christianity as we know it today was 'the religion of the people', and the arguments of people wishing to 'Keep Britain British' make me and others laugh.

I wont go in to detail, I'll just say, Vikings, Saxons and Romans.

As the dissolution of the Monarchy is pretty much a pipe dream, as an Englishman I would welcome this step, firstly because its symbolic of the 'power' of the head honcho no longer fulfilling the traditional role as head of a religion used primarily in our past as justification for the people oh so better than us, seeing as they have Gods' mandate, and secondly because the Muslims I know and are friends with would feel welcomed (as they seem to like the monarchy, frick knows why).

BUT, I know most of the subjects in my lovely country would be very upset, some even angered, by this. As stated earlier, this Bishop must be grossly disconnected from the common man to think this would fly. The royalists hate any perceived change in their (in my views rather ugly) traditions, and the general consensus of most working class people I know is that Islam is a religion of terror and barbarism. If this were to go ahead, we may find less people in support of the Monarchy (yay!) but also an even greater shift into racial and cultural divide (boo!).

Great post O.P, will watch this with interest, star for you for bringing this to our attention!

This would be another small step on the road to a new world order,destroying cultural identity and national identity will make it easier for people to accept a NWO.One big pot of stew where the carrots,peas and potatos all look and taste the same.

I think people say this kind of stuff just to stir the pot. Humans are despicable.

I don't think there should be a constitutional monarchy in the UK anyway but regardless of the process deciding the head of state I see no place for any religious reference in the ceremony.
I am Welsh British. The last Welsh 'royal' ruler in Wales was killed in 1282 by the current English/French/German dynasty. Tho whole 'royal' thing is ridiculous as far as I'm concerned, they were just the biggest gang back in the day, nothing special about the bloodline. The symbolic nature of the post is irrelevant to me, the absolute injustice and disgrace is that the UK head of state can only be born from that particular family, regardless of merit.

What an obvious Daily Mail headline. It's almost satirical. Look at the rest of their headlines and see what agenda they are trying to push. Don't play along.

a reply to: grainofsand

Not to mention the frankly cowardly change of name from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha when Germanic heritage wasn't such a boon to them

Sadly the religious reference is of some import to them, as it throws back to how they gained such wealth and land historically. Still, short of dissolution, for the most part whatever little ceremonies and traditions they want to have doesn't bother me much, aside from their assumption we should infact care.

More irritating than the family itself is seeing hordes of subjects pissing with giddiness and joy at their coronations/weddings/birthdays in their golden coaches then going home to work mundane jobs, when common sense dictates they should be riled up and angered by the show-offiness and general 'significantly better than you' displays. Cognitive dissonance at its finest.

We may be paying a pittance for each royal, annually, but that's a pittance too much.

But we're not bitter. I smell serious envy.

a reply to: Spruce
Do you support a situation that the head of state of a country should only be born from a particular bloodline then?
I don't, because of the rather obvious democracy issues in the 21st Century.

Using a gesture of another faith, to impress that other faith.

Quite the Jester.

a reply to: Specimen
Agreed.
Take all faith based stuff out of the ceremony appointing heads of state for the UK I say.
Get rid of Church of England Bishops in the House of Lords as well, get rid of the House itself and have an elected 2nd chamber and more...but then that would be too democratic [/rolls eyes]

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

that's not the point Charlie, the point is that the King of England is also the head of the Anglican Church, or the Church of England. Would the most important mullah in Mecca or Jerusalem or Iran have a Christian prayer in his mosque on his coronation day if the roles were reversed? Hell no he wouldn't, and to say that its acceptable is ridiculous. I'm all about equality, but islam damn well does teach that. The extremists have the voice in that religion, and they do nothing but vomit out hatred. Why, would the head of a church wish to have a Muslim prayer at his coronation for King, going against 100's of years of history and cultural belief. Its insulting for everyone british, and that's coming from an American. there is nothing wrong with people not wanting to be a mess of different people from different places. Further, studies show, there is less crime when you have a more homogeneous society, an example Japan. Britian is for the Brits, just as Russia is for Russians, Sweden is for Swedes, Saudi Arabia is for Arabs, Africa is for Africans, (Though I think the Africaners should have a role since they been then 200 yrs.) The only place that has no identity is my home country USA. we are the melting pot of chaos, blood, sweat and tears, and truthfully, if wouldn't wish this on any other country. It weakens us, in my opinion, and I think we'd be a lot stronger is we were more homogenous.


cheers camain