On the Civitas website, David Conway writes a sharp comment on the way The Times a couple of days ago interpreted remarks made by the Prince of Wales at al Azhar university in Cairo on his tour of the Arab world. Referring to the appalling case of Abdul Rahman, who is facing trial and possible execution in Afghanistan for having converted from Islam to Christianity, Conway observes:

The story about this man first broke in the English press on Tuesday of this week which was the same day as the Prince of Wales delivered a speech in Egypt, which he is currently visiting as part of an official tour of the Muslim world, in which he will have, reportedly, and quite correctly told his audience that: ‘It’s tolerance, it’s understanding of what other people hold sacred which … is so vital’. The trouble with espousing this sentiment in that part of the world, however, is that, in all too many parts of it today, what is held sacred is intolerance of what others hold sacred. And, when and where it is, anyone who wishes to practice tolerance faces the question of how much religious intolerance may and should be to tolerated.

The Times, which on Tuesday carried reports both about the Prince of Wales’ speech as well as the plight of the poor Afghani, devoted a leader to this subject, which bore the promising title, ‘Faith and Respect: Why religious intolerance must not be tolerated’. Despite its condemning apostasy from Islam, or from any other religion, being anywhere in the world a criminal offence, the newspaper can be condemned for having ducked the serious issue posed by Islam in having asserted that nowhere in the Koran is apostasy prescribed a capital offence. This allowed it to claim that Islam was as tolerant of Christianity and Judaism as these two other religions were of each other and it. ‘The Prince rightly underlines the importance of respect by one religion for another – especially the three Abrahamic religions’ the editorial ran, before adding that: ‘All three religions commend such tolerance.’

This latter claim is most tendentious, and one wonders why on earth it was ever made. It is all too easy for westerners to avoid having to face up to the very harsh and uncomfortable question about how genuinely tolerant a religion Islam truly is and can be by their denying to be integral to it, as the Times leader does, any morally objectionable tenets such as those of its adherents do who think it prescribes and who as a result impose a death penalty upon apostates from it.

However, there is a further point to be made about the princely comments. Although he began by expressing his ‘heavy heart’ at the impact of terrorism and his sadness that no-one had listened to his call for bridges to be built between cultures (so far, so unexceptionable) he went on to criticise the publication of the Danish cartoons:

‘The recent ghastly strife and anger over the Danish cartoons show the danger that comes of our failure to listen and to respect what is precious and sacred to others,’ said the prince. ‘In my view, the true mark of a civilised society is the respect it pays to minorities and to strangers.’ He continued: ‘I look forward to a world in which we share a vision that acknowledges our differences with respect and understanding, that recognises what others hold sacred, and to a world in which we see that we cannot and must not abuse our great traditions and their teachings as a weapon in the service of selfish worldly power.’

So the worldwide violence, destruction, killings and lootings that followed publication of the cartoons were merely ‘ghastly’ and were caused by ‘our failure to listen and to respect what is precious and sacred to others’. But this was not so. The uproar was caused by the Islamist world failing to respect the freedom to protest against a clerical threat to life and liberty and then actually attacking life and liberty, thus amply proving the point of the original protest. Publication of the cartoons was therefore a morally justified act which should be defended by all who fight intolerance and bigotry. Yet here was the heir to the throne of England taking the part of the bigots, and blaming the violence instead on the ‘lack of respect’ for the creed that promoted that violence!

How very different from the home life of our own dear Queen.