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.'

April_2002_profileInayat 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.

060320_egypt_02_thThe 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, and stop bleating to the Press Complaints Commission at the slightest error made by people who are in fact doing their best to highlight issues of truth and justice. 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.

Posted by Ruth Gledhill on Tuesday, 21 March 2006 at 01:07 PM in Current Affairs, Religion, Weblogs