An earlier article reports the Church of England suggesting that Christian leaders should apologize to Muslim leaders for the war in Iraq. This report from the Agape Press now has the Church of England suggesting that all Christians should apologize to Muslims for the U.S.-British invasion.
The five Anglican bishops suggested that Christians should apologize to Muslims for the U.S.-British invasion of Iraq and the subsequent overthrow of dictator Saddam Hussein. The report -- entitled "Countering Terrorism: Power, Violence and Democracy Post 9/11" -- includes a 13-point schedule of "Christian principles" in response to the threat of terrorism, in which the writers call for states to "understand" the perspective of their terrorist antagonists. The September 19 report also alleges that U.S. evangelical Christians promoted and facilitated the war in Iraq because of their purported belief that the United States has a manifest destiny for military conquest.Mark Tooley with the Washington, DC-based Institute on Religion and Democracy does not give the report much credibility. Tooley says Church of England bishops often rely on stereotypes of U.S. Evangelicals rooted in British prejudice rather than genuine reality.
"The Church of England, of course, is very much a declining institution dominated by liberal theology," Tooley notes, "and I think these bishops -- as do probably many bishops of that institution -- don't even know much about Evangelicals, much less [are] able to comment about Evangelicals across the ocean."
The conspiracy theories laid out in the bishops' report, says the IRD spokesman, are spurious, yet also very revealing about those making the allegations. He believes the Anglican bishops are trying to deflect attention away from their own problems.
"Only a small percentage of British people go to church, and a smaller percentage of that even are Anglican," he points out. "More of the churchgoers in England now are either Catholic or evangelical. So I would surmise that at least subconsciously there may be some resentment and jealousy from the bishops of the Church of England, or least the bishops who wrote this report."
Mohammed didn't invent terrorism, but Muslims have been using this tactic in his name since his time on earth. Perhaps they should apologize to us for the long history of their use of the tactic AND the thousands of terror attacks that occur for the sake of Islam every year.
"the writers call for states to "understand" the perspective of their terrorist antagonists."
-- from the article above
Oh, everyone who visits at JW understands that perspective perfectly.
Or have we missed something? Tell us.
absolutely wired to the moon, thats what they are. they are certainly not connected in any way to the God they claim to represent
I have been trying to find on line the very scathing reply to the suggestion from these 5 Bishops that an apology should be made for the war. Unfortunately it seems to have gone into the subscription only archive. So you will have to take my word for it that in the Church Times of 30 September 2005 (The Church Times is a leading Anglican weekly newspaper which has always been independent of the Church of England hierarchy) there was a scathing article criticising these bishops for this barmy idea. I don't have the paper in front of me as I don't take it myself, I read my father-in-laws. The points I can remember were:-
That the church was not responsible for the decision of a democratically elected government (to go to war) so why do the Bishops think it is their place to apologise.
That in any event no apology was necessary for an operation intended to relieve Iraq of a dictator of Saddam Hussein's magnitude.
The same point I myself made, that the troops in Iraq, and the chaplains who minister to them, need support, not to be undermined while under fire.
There was more.
This call for an apology was not well received, down at the pewface.
One of the best sermons I've ever heard was at Westminster Abbey, delivered by a physicist turned minister.
What happened? Lead in the plumbing?
Haven't we all been told several times that this isn't a religious war?
No apology is necessary, except on the part of Islam....They owe the world a big "I'm sorry", but we'll never hear it.
These five Bishops know that the only way they can command any airtime is when they are hanging onto the coat tails of a Muslim cause.
Like a poor product that hires a tarnished celebrity to glean some favourable edgy coverage...
I upset Granny last time I commented upon the Church of England, something I very much regret doing. I do believe that Granny & her ilk should have more access to these great Bishops than Sir Iqbal - for me its the only way that the leaders of that Church Franchise will get in touch with their God & themselves again - via their congregation.
These Bishops are beyond Liberal - they are undoubtably Suicidaliberals.
Beagle
Was this the chap http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/6/3/10
John Polkinghorne?
Because if it was, I missed him giving a talk locally some months ago which everybody I knew who did attend said was awesome.
As a child my husband shot the then Bishop of Wakefield who was visiting his father, with his cap gun. He would like to have these mad five gentlemen in his sights now...as an adult......
Albion
That was largely the tone of the Church Times report, I wish I could find it.
I have hopes of the new Archbishop of York, John Semantu, a man who has seen evil up close and personal, in the shape of Idi Amin.
"As a child my husband shot the then Bishop of Wakefield..."
-- from a posting above
Thank god it wasn't the Vicar of Wakefield. "Ill fares the land...."
What apologise for removing a blood thirsty criminal who robbed raped and murdered thousands, some in ways that are almost impossible to imagine. Apologise for trying to re-build the country and giving these people the chance to make their mind up on whether they want freedom or not.
Next thing they will be apologising for Islamics getting blood on their clothes when they massacre the few Christians left in the middle east...
Daffersd - exactly!
Here is another article on this subject.
http://www.crosswalk.com/news/1352420.html
The C of E could do with more acerbic, witty people like Granny W, who would put the wimps in their place.
Granny W for Archbish.
(Stocks of communion wine might be strangely depleted though.)
hic!
Granny Weatherwax
I can't be sure, as I saw the sermon in 1987. But I would bet that is the same man. The "religion as natural science" is exactly what appealed to me.
Thanks for the link. I've never forgotten the sermon but I have forgotten who to credit.
Perhaps most impressive was his conclusion. Just as he said "God's illumination" the sun's rays poured through the stained glass windows. Those five minutes were the only five minutes the sun came out while I visited London.
Five angelical bishops? Now aint that impressive.
Five of em...didn't know there were that many.
It's just a teeny bit presumptuous of them to speak for all Christians, but it was that Christian crusader George the Mighty that invaded Iraq,(and other places) for the express purpose of spreading Christianity in the disguise of democracy. Forget the oil and the geo political aspects, the whole thing is a dirty Christian attempt at religious hegemony by violence and take over. They dont call W George the Mighty for nothing. Christians should not only apologise to muslims, they should bow, scrape and humble themselves before them.
If you follow these five, get ready for some serious bowing and scraping. We can start right here on JW/DW. IA786, Kingky, Mohideen, Heman, and several other muslim posters are owed an apology by Christian posters. You know who you are. So the next time IA666 or Kingky show up, start apologising (that will really confuse them), it's the Christian thing to do...
If they feel so sorry, why don't they go and see Abu Musab Al Zarqawi and make a personal apology, I am sure he will receive them with his customary welcome for Christians...
I've just revisited what Melanie Phillips had to say earlier about the Anglican church in this matter:
http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/archives/001419.html
Next thing they will be apologising for Islamics getting blood on their clothes when they massacre the few Christians left in the middle east...
Posted by: Daffersd at October 10, 2005 09:38 AM
These guys are unbelievable! No wonder church attendance has fallen to such miserable depths in Britain. These ministers are typical, self-hating liberals. Everyone's is better than the evil anglos; we must apologise, repent, and surrender to our maligned victims!
Apologist is too masculine a term for these so-called men of G-d.
Point Number 14.
Stand in line, drop pants and prepare for neutering. You have no need for those useless gonadal appenditures
Who gives a shit what bishops say anyway? Check out their description in C.S. Lewis's : "The Great Divorce".Hell is half full of bishops and their ilk. Bishop=coward. Sack them all.
Lol.
The CoE isn't aging well at all.
These demands for apologies to Muslims carry about as much weight as Australia's Rev Fred Nile's denunciations of homosexuality - a sideshow, nothing more.
“The five Anglican bishops suggested that Christians should apologize to Muslims for the U.S.-British invasion of Iraq and the subsequent overthrow of dictator Saddam Hussein.”
Sorry, we should have carpet bombed instead.
“The report -- entitled "Countering Terrorism: Power, Violence and Democracy Post 9/11" -- includes a 13-point schedule of "Christian principles" in response to the threat of terrorism, in which the writers call for states to "understand" the perspective of their terrorist antagonists.”
Yeah, they want to kill us.
Too bad there are not more Bishops that will listen to Dr Alan C. Clifford
Pastor, Norwich Reformed Church
http://www.geocities.com/nrchurch/
He's got islam's number.
Carolyn2, He most certainly has, very refreshing.
I think the Brits owe those misunderstood fellows from July 7 an apology as well.
Carolyn 2
That's the first use of "taqiyya" I have come across outside this site and the books I have been pointed to via this site.
I don't think I would fit in at that church however with my views on women's role within the church and a couple of other matters.
I will be in Norwich next week, I might take a look at their bookshop.
Beagle
That experience obviously made an impression on you, these little things often have a big effect.
Getting back to Melanie Phillips she speaks well of other clergymen, in particular Canon Andrew White http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/archives/001293.html
who is currently mourning the death of the leaders of the Anglican Church in Bagdad.
http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/80256FA1003E05C1/httpPublicPages/25BAFB8093DE254D80257092004FB034?opendocument
and http://www.stchcathedral.com.bh/st-georges/appeal.htm
I don't find the current arch-druid a very inspiring leader, I can't work out what he thinks and I don't believe that he realises that Islam is, as my Father-in-law put it, "not Anglicans without Hymns Ancient and Modern". I think Dr Carey is now getting the idea, but too late !!!!
So, if the Church of England believes that we are all to be held accountable for our actions, when are Muslims going to be forced to apologize for the hundreds of millions of humans they have murdered in ice-cold blood in the name of Islam over the past millennium?
We'd still like to see Turkey even acknowledge that it murdered over one million Armenian Christians in 1915.
Now, if the Church of England is saying there IS a double standard, that ONLY Muslims are entitled to justice for their victimization the Church of England has departed from Christianity and is in a twilight zone that is neither Christian nor Islamic. Since it has done that to itself (with helpings of Islamic brainwashing), there is really no need to listen to it anymore. Tune it out. We want justice. Not idiocy.
Only Muslims actually believe that only they may receive justice for harm done to them.
It no better this side of the pond, and in fact, it's likely worse in America than in England because America has powerful and wealthy church organizations that can and do great harm. My hysteria levels reach into the red zone when I read such things as the frontpagemagazine article below.
Maybe I'm over-reacting, but my feeling is that many of the current PCUSA officials, and the others with whom I'm not as familiar, should be tried for war crimes.
It's average middle class Americans who pay for the criminal activities of the ruling councils in the churches. My first response would require that I change my name here and reregister as another, so I'll suggest that those who attend churches in America stop paying for the crimes their church leaders commit. In the long run it's likely more effective.
I promised not to attack the Presbyterian kids at Princeton Theological School any further unless they pulled some new outrage, and so far I'll stick to that. They aren't completely evil as of yet but one can only imagine how bad they'll be in a year or two more of this vile indocrination. How, I ask, has it come to a point that I am sick and ashamed of Protestant ministers? They qualify as some of the most evil people in America.
I have to go calm down. I'll never eat white bread or mayo again.
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19790
sonofwalker: "Maybe I'm over-reacting, but my feeling is that many of the current PCUSA officials, and the others with whom I'm not as familiar, should be tried for war crimes."
King: Over reacting? You? Peshaw! Anyone who wants to try "others with whom I'm not as familiar" with war crimes is certainly not over reacting! (sarcasm folks).
Given that Frontpage panders to the far reaching neo-con shores of the right wing with its propaganda as well as its anti-Liberal T-shirts and coffee mugs, I'd say your reaction to their article is about right.
What you and others here are trying to pass off as "dhimmitude" , "political correctness", or "war crimes" others are calling a pargatic and balanced approach to try to resolve differences and live in peace.
s/b "pragmatic" not pargatic.
I have been waiting for this site to open, it did so last week when I wasn't looking.
http://www.anglicansforisrael.com/
and Melanie Phillip's comment is here http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/archives/001427.html
I don't think I would fit in at that church [Norwich] however with my views on women's role within the church and a couple of other matters.
But isn't it funny how it has largely been the conservatives who have opened their eyes to the pernicious danger of Islam, and not the Lefties who are oh so sensitive about women's issues, gay issues, freedom of expression, la-dee-da?
It's not just sheer accident or coincidence. There's a deeper cultural factor at work here: rationality has been better preserved among the conservatives of Western culture, and one indication of that is the readiness with which conservatives can flexibly criticize and critically study Islam -- and the readiness with which Leftists persist in tenderly and self-righteously defending a regressively paleo-conservative & puritanical Islam at every turn.
7 Myths About Islam
By Timothy R. Furnish
Mr. Furnish, Ph.D (Islamic History), is Assistant Professor, History, Georgia Perimeter College, Dunwoody, GA 30338. Mr. Furnish is the author of Holiest Wars: Islamic Mahdis, their Jihads and Osama bin Laden (Praeger, 2005).
http://hnn.us/articles/16536.html
One of the few positive effects of 9/11 has been renewed American interest in Islam and the Middle East. Unfortunately, much of the information disseminated in the media about those topics is ignorant and misleading. This is unfortunate because any hope that the predominantly-Christian West and the Muslim world might transcend conflict requires that the former be accurately informed about the latter (and vice-versa, but that’s an issue for another column). There are in particular seven myths about Islam and Islamic history that have been repeated so often in the media that they’ve achieved conventional wisdom status.
First, it is untrue that Islam is the world’s fastest-growing religion. (Mormonism and Scientology also claim this, but few outside of Salt Lake City and Hollywood believe it.) As Philip Jenkins of Penn State University demonstrates in his work Christianity—in particular Pentecostalism—is the world’s most-rapidly growing faith. Currently there are 2 billion Christians and 1.3 billion Muslims (out of a world population of 6 billion), and in the 21st century Christianity will maintain its lead, thanks to explosive growth in sub-Saharan Africa and China.
Second, despite the claims of even President Bush in a number of public statements, Islam is not solely a “religion of peace.” Yes, there are verses of toleration in the Qur’an: Sura(chapter) al-Baqarah:256 says “there shall be no compulsion in religion;” Sura al-Furqan:65ff says that Allah will be merciful to those who repent and do good works; and Sura al-Nisa’:19ff enjoins Muslim men to provide financially for wives and ex-wives. But verses such as these are arguably outweighed by others: Sura Anfal:12ff and Sura Muhammad:3ff command the beheading of unbelievers; Sura al-Nisa’:34ff allows for beating of one’s wives and in verses 74ff and 94ff, promises great reward for those who die fighting for Allah; Sura al-Ma’idah:51 says “Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends.” Of course there are violent sections in the Bible—or at least in the Hebrew Scriptures/Old Testament (Joshua and David were military leaders as much as religious ones). But no one denies that, as many—both Muslim and non-Muslim—deny these violent and misogynistic passages in the Qur’an. Many arguments can be made against such verses (they must be contextualized, they are applicable only to that time, they are metaphorical, etc.) but one cannot say they do not exist. Someone who simply rehashs that “the Qur’an teaches peace” obviously hasn’t read it. No doubt most Muslims do not read the passages about decapitation as a blueprint for today. But just as some Christians take literally, for example, the command of to Christ handle poisonous snakes (Luke 10:19), some Muslims take literally the injunction to behead unbelievers. And the latter practice is a bit more injurious to other folks than the former.
Third on the misinformation parade is the allegation that jihad does not mean holy war. This falsehood crops up often in text books and in the media, where the politically-correct tirelessly repeat that jihad actually means only “striving to be a good Muslim.” This is half-right. But early on in Islamic history, jihad came to mean fighting against unbelievers in order to expand the territory under Muslim rule. al-Bukhari lived in the 9th century CE and was the most authoritative compiler of sayings attributed to the prophet Muhammad; he mentions jihad many times as meaning “holy war.” Jihad as “Muslim piety” is mainly the province of the Sufis, the mystics of Islam, and has become a minority view today. Furthermore, Islamic history is chock-full of leaders declaring jihads against their enemies—even the moderately Muslim Ottoman Empire declared a holy war against the French, British and Russians in World War I!
Fourth is the whopper that Islam spread peacefully from Arabia, as if the followers of Muhammad went door-to-door ringing doorbells and handing out brochures. From the mid-7th century CE Muslims militarily overran regions and then pressured the conquered to convert. (Yes, Christian kingdoms did the same—but, again, no one denies that!) Muslim Arab armies destroyed the entire Persian Empire (modern Iran), replacing its official Zoroastrian religion; about the same time they invaded the surviving Christian Roman (Byzantine) Empire and within a few decades had taken half its territory. In 732 CE a Muslim army from Morocco was in France! By 750 CE Muslims ruled from the Iberian Peninula to India. And Muslim armies would stay on the offensive for the next millennium, with only two exceptions: the “Reconquista” in Iberia and the Crusades.
The fifth tiresome myth is that the European Catholic Crusaders started the war with Islam and that for eight centuries Muslims have been brooding over the horrible injustices thereof. Actually, the Crusades, 1095-1291, were simply the first time that European Christians managed to take the fight to their enemy’s territory. And besides: why are the Crusades being constantly used as a club with which to beat the West—remember the scathing attacks on President Bush when, not long after 9/11, he referred to a “crusade” against terrorism?—when the Muslims won? Usama bin Ladin’s constant references to Americans as “Crusaders” is thus a perfect marriage of historical illiteracy with keen psychological insight into his enemy’s self-hate.
Another fairy tale about Islam is that poverty produces terrorists. This hoary myth tells us more about the worldview of its American adherents than it does about the ranks of the Islamists. Most of the 9/11 and London bombers were university-educated and at least middle-class. The same is true for Palestinian suicide bombers and most likely those in Iraq. Naive Americans take their domestic paradigm about poverty and crime—that the former causes the latter—and apply it to a context where it doesn’t fit Regarding the recent London bombings, a British terrorism expert said that “socioeconomic background does not appear to [have] play[ed] a role.” Poverty may be necessary, but it is hardly sufficient, to explain Islamic terrorism.
And finally, we have politically-correct mendacity number seven, which even British Prime Minister Tony Blair recently repeated: that Islam has been “hijacked” by terrorists. In this view Bin Ladin, the ayatollahs in Iran, the former Taliban rulers of Afghanistan, the Saudis with their Wahhabism (a particularly puritanical brand of Sunni Islam)—all are twisting a “moderate” religion to suit their purpose. The “Islam = peace” brigade essentializes Islam as peaceful. UBL essentializes it as jihad. Although there are Qur’an verses, and sayings of Muhammad, on both sides, many do support Bin Ladin and his ilk. Also, Islamic history is replete with Muslim scholars whom the modern Islamic fundamentalists draw upon. The most famous is Ibn Taymiyah who, 700 years before George Bush said “you’re either for us or against us,” divided the world into the domain of Islam and that of war. The only good ruler is a Muslim ruler, asserted Ibn Taymiyah. And by that he meant one that enforces shari`ah, or Islamic law. Most Muslims do not agree, but some do. (And only 10 percent of 1.3 billion is 130 million.) But it is no use pretending that the UBLs of the world have falsely “hijacked” Islam. Indeed, their view of the faith—however intolerant and violent it may seem—has a basis in Islamic theology and history.
Islam is where Christianity was before the Thirty Years War (1618-1648) and then the Enlightenment led the West to divorce religion and state, thereby removing (mostly) the threat of religious-based warfare. As a fellow monotheist with Muslims, I pray that the moderate strands within Islam win out over the more fundamentalist ones, allowing that civilization to follow suit. And for we in the West to help with that, we need to open our eyes to the reality of the harsher aspects of Islam and Islamic history. Anything else is simple—and dangerous—self-deception.
otterfisher: Islam is where Christianity was before the Thirty Years War (1618-1648)
The teaching of Jesus was about love, compassion and forgiveness. How can Christianity ever be similar to islam in its doctrine?
I know you mean well but I think you are too generous to islam.
Granny Weatherwax
The sun coming out at the right time had a bigger effect on my traveling companion. She wouldn't talk about it, citing some rule about not talking about "miracles." Sure, it was cloudy the rest of the time, but I wasn't ready to jump all the way to miracle.
I was more enthusiastic about hearing a sermon which didn't put science and religion on a direct collision course. Back in those days I was concerned with the upsurge in American Christian fundamentalism which seemed to attack science at every turn. Some people seem stuck in that attitude despite the upsurge in Islam which has a substantial body count.
DP111..
I should have placed quotes around the entire article...posted it here from LGF mainly
as evidence that not all of academia is totally out-of-touch..
..I agree.. islam is quite incomparable in it's hideousness..
Beagle
That is John Polkinghorne's big strength, the compatability of science and religion, which is why I was sorry to miss hearing him. I found his website earlier http://www.polkinghorne.org/ which you might like. I would like to know more about his approach to creation which he touches on in the Q&A section.
As far as I recall the early summer of 1987 was very wet but it got dryer later. The sun was not so very rare that year.
Talking of apologies
Coptic TV Show Causes Controversy in Egypt
The weekly show "Questions About Faith" on the Egyptian based Christian Al-Hayat satellite channel features an Egyptian Coptic priest residing in the United States. Father Zakaria Boutrus, the show, and Al-Hayat TV itself, have come under harsh criticism in the Egyptian press. Boutrus and his show have been accused of attacking Islam; of being supported by the U.S. to sow division and strife; and of "mocking the verses of Allah."
Al-Hayat TV has been accused of being the work of foreign agents collaborating with the U.S., and Pope Shenouda III reportedly announced his opposition to the station's broadcasts, and denied that the station was in any way connected with the Egyptian Church. [1]
One episode which aired on July 4, 2005, discusses anti-Christian verses that, according to Boutrus, should be struck from the Koran. Another episode aired on June 27, 2005, discusses a Hadith, which according to Boutrus, is "reminiscent of Hitler." An episode from June 16, 2005, talks about how Islam is spread by the sword.
Clip 1 - Coptic Priest Zakaria Boutrus: Verses Must be Struck from the Koran; I Demand an Official Apology from Muslim Governments to Christians
TO VIEW THIS CLIP: http://memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=753
Boutrus: "I live in a country (the U.S.) that respects freedom of speech. I exercise my freedom of speech and talk, and no one can deny my free will. Gone are the days of the sharp sword that cut off the tongues of our people and forefathers to prevent them from speaking in the Coptic language. Gone are the days people's heads would be chopped off if they did not convert to Islam."
Interviewer: "What should the Muslims do to make you stop saying these things?"
Boutrus: "My demands involve ten important issues. Let's call it ten demands. The first demand... They are not for my sake, but for the sake of truth, belief, and Jesus. First, striking out all the Koranic verses that deny the divinity of Jesus and the revelation of God in him. Second, acknowledging that Jesus is the spirit and word of God, as they truly believe, without hiding this fact. Third, striking out the Koranic verses and hadiths that incite to kill Christians, like in the Al-Tawba chapter, v.29: 'Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in Judgment Day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His messenger have prohibited, nor do they follow the religion of truth' – that is, Islam. Among whom? 'Among the People of the Book.'
Interviewer: "Who are..."
Boutrus: "The Christians and Jews. 'Until they pay the Jizya poll tax in submission.' This is murder. Number four, striking out the Koranic verses and Hadiths that incite to terrorism and oppression in all their forms."
Interviewer: "What do you mean by terrorism and oppression?"
Boutrus: "Terrorism – 'Urge the believers to fight,' and the hadith: 'I was commanded to fight people until they say: There is no God but Allah.' All this is terrorism and murder. Number six:Stopping the attack on Jesus and the Holy Book in mosques and in all the media. Number seven: Giving people and Muslims the freedom of... You may ask what do I care about the Muslims? No! They must have the freedom to choose their religion and the freedom to express their belief. Number eight:To abolish the punishment for apostasy, to stop torturing people who convert to Christianity, and to stop imprisoning or even killing them. Number nine:Formal apologies must be made by leaders throughout the Arab world for the murder of Christians in countries invaded by Islam. Number ten: Leaders throughout the Arab world should make formal apologies for the insults directed against our faith throughout Islamic history. The viewers may say: 'Is this priest crazy, or what? These demands could only be made by an insane man... To strike out Koranic verses... Does this make any sense? What is he going on about?' OK, if you cannot change (the Koran), why are you asking us to change our beliefs? Why do you demand that we say what you say, or else - the sword?
"(Al-Halabi) says: ' If the Prophet wanted an available woman...' – in other words, an unmarried woman, a widow, or a single woman – '...he was allowed to enter her...' I don't like to use the word i-n-t-e-r-c-o-u-r-s-e. '...without her guardian and without witnesses...' Without witnesses. '...and against her will.' Against her will. 'If he desired a married woman, her husband had to divorce her for him. And if he desired a servant-girl, her master had to give her to him. He can even marry off the woman to whoever he wants, against her will.'"
Interviewer: "We know that the Prophet is allowed what others are not."
Boutrus: "Why? Is he made of different stuff than the rest of mankind?"
Clip 2 - Coptic Priest Zakaria Boutrus: The Prophet Muhammad's Hadith Is Reminiscent of Hitler
TO VIEW THIS CLIP: http://memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=751
Boutrus: "A hadith by the Prophet Muhammad says: 'Two religions will not exist together in the Arabian Peninsula.'"
Host: "Is this not a type of racism?"
Boutrus: "This is Hitler. This is Hitler, whom we despise. Who destroys entire nations? The (Jewish tribes of) Bani Qureiza and Bani Nadhir, and Najran... It is forbidden. Murdering people because they don't have the same beliefs as you..."
Clip 3 - Coptic Priest Zakaria Boutrus on the Spreading of Islam By the Sword
TO VIEW THIS CLIP: http://memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=718
Boutrus:"Islam, as portrayed in the encyclopedia of Islam, in the Koran and the Hadith, was spread by means of the sword. 'The sword played a major role in spreading Islam in the past, and it is the sword that preserves Islam today. Islam relies upon Jihad in spreading the religion.' This is very clear in the encyclopedia. This appears in section 11, page. 3,245. It says: 'Spreading Islam by means of the sword is a duty incumbent upon all Muslims.' Thus, Islam is spread by means of the sword.
"Another thing is the punishment for apostasy. 'The punishment of killing any Muslim who abandons Islam is one of the most important factors terrifying all Muslim. He does not dare question the truth of Islam, so that his thoughts will not lead him to abandon Islam. In such a case, he would receive the punishment for apostasy: He would lose his life, and his property and wives would permitted for all.'
"This reminds me of a true story that I heard about the preachers who spread Islam in Africa. They reached a certain place in order to spread Islam, and they asked one of the locals: 'Do you prefer to worship one god and have four wives, or to worship three gods and have one wife?' We, of course, don't worship three gods, but that's what they said. The African said 'I like four women, and I don't care which god. I want four women.' So they told him to say the shahada, and he did.
"Then they told him he had to be circumcised in order to become a Muslim. He asked: 'Do I really have to? I am a grown man.' They answered: 'Yes, you have to, in order to get the monthly stipend, and you can marry four wives.' The man agreed, and underwent the pains of circumcision despite his advanced age. They began to pay him the monthly stipend, and after a few months they cancelled the stipend. The man went and asked: 'Where's the money?' They told him: 'Now you are deep in Islam, you don't need the monthly stipend any more.' He threatened: 'I will abandon Islam.' They said: 'If you leave Islam, we will carry out the apostasy punishment on you.' He asked what it was, and they said: 'We will chop off your head, and cut you into pieces.' This African man began to mumble: 'What a strange religion: when you go in they cut off a little piece of you, and when you go out, they cut you into little pieces.'
"This is the punishment for apostasy that keeps people afraid. Even when they reach the truth, they're afraid to express their opinion. There are other factors, such as upbringing from a young age. Children are brainwashed that Islam is the truth, that Mohammad is the last prophet, that the Christians are infidels and that the Jews are infidels. They repeat it constantly.
"Since early childhood, he cannot think properly, because a certain way of thinking is forced on him. In addition, the religion of Islam satisfies the human urges, just like our (African) friend who said he preferred four wives. 'Two, three, four, or however many you can.' It satisfies the sexual urges and man's desire for ownership. It goes hand in hand with human nature. It does not exalt human nature, but reduces itself to the level of human nature."
otterfisher
Thanks for the clarification.
breadwinner:In addition, the religion of Islam satisfies the human urges, just like our (African) friend who said he preferred four wives.
Just a little addition. Islam satisfies the basest urges of a man. Maybe that is why so many criminals take to it. In addition, there is nothing much in islam for women unless their desire is to be human battery chickens.
Its King Tolerance - hows the hunt for a six year old girl for a wife going????? Oh that's right - Mohammed's Aisha was nine when he had sex with her - something you as a "pious" Muslim approve of.
I find it apalling that some Anglican bishops believe that Christians should apologize for the U.S intervention in Iraq. Perhaps these bishops are watching a bit too much of the BBC and its bizarre obsession with being politically correct? I find it amazing that they actually believe that the U.S. invasion in Iraq was a religious war.
Some islamists mistakenly think along these lines, including Usama Bin Laden. It appears that the Anglican bishops are getting their information about the war from the islamists or the BBC rather than from mainstream society.
How dare these Anglicans speak for the rest of Christians in the world. As a Christian, I am offended that they are even attempting to speak for the rest of us. I will tell you these confused Anglican bishops will surely not motivate me one bit to apologize to Muslims for the U.S. invasion in Iraq. They can take their strange ideas about apologizing to Muslims and spend time send it back to the caves of Afganistan where it originated from.
It is no secret that the Anglican Church has run out of steam to guide people to the truth. Clearly, it is a church that had lost its moral and spiritual credibility in the world. Few people today actually look to the Anglican Church for true inspiration to address the problems of the world.
"How dare these Anglicans speak for the rest of Christians in the world. As a Christian, I am offended that they are even attempting to speak for the rest of us."
Well said, Johnathon. Perhaps it would be faster (albiet less dignified)if the 5 bishops knelt down and kissed Saddam's fat, hairy butt. Then ask the Iraqi people if they want us out and him back.
I do feel sorry for the Anglican flock. There still are Christians in that Church, people who believe in Our Lord Jesus Christ and are disposed to take up their cross and follow him; at least two people I knew whose beliefs and behaviour demanded to be called saintly were, and I suppose still are, devout Anglicans. They have produced some of the greatest Christian writers in history, from Hooker to C.S.Lewis, and John Polkinghorne shows that that tradition is still alive.
All the same, these people are and have always been ill at home in that church. The Anglican Church represents, and has always represented, the hijacking of the Catholic Church by the British aristocracy, and has always prized and promoted being a gentleman - whatever it was that being a gentleman meant in any historical period - far above being a Christian. This Church hates and fears "enthusiasm", demands coolness and decorum, and tends to drive out anyone who rocks the boat too much - whether in the direction of a Wesley or of a Newman. Its basic purpose has always been to preserve just as much Christianity as is compatible with the comfort and self-assurance of English gentlemen.
To these ivory tower dwellers, floaters in faint and far paradises of dialogue and inclusion, in which talk talk talk is supposed to be the answer to all disagreements, I would ask this: when are you going to apologize to the Catholic Church and to the free Protestant churches for the methods by which your own body was set up? Read Cobbett's classic account of how this church was invented by a sex-mad tyrant and some greedy adventurers, built on monumental robbery, torture, and rivers of blood; an account that cannot be contradicted, only ignored (as most historians do), because it is based on facts and documents. This is something that the Anglican leadership ought really to apologize for, before they go out apologizing for the supposed sins of other churches and nations, which are not and never have been any concern of theirs.
2 minutes ago I could not imagine to be in agreement with you.
What you posted above is right on the money!
Well done!
LONDON, Oct. 10 - The British government unveiled plans on Monday to outlaw 15 foreign Islamic militant groups as part of its campaign against terrorism following the July bombings here.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/11/international/europe/11britain.html?ex=1129694400&en=0f1d3e559f6282bc&ei=5065&partner=MYWAY
Only 15?
Paolo,
Protest as much as you want, but at least until your next posting you are my hero and my role model!
cheers,
Thomas h.
'What you and others here are trying to pass off as "dhimmitude" , "political correctness", or "war crimes" others are calling a pargatic and balanced approach to try to resolve differences and live in peace. '
How differences were resolved in Iraq prior to the War on Terror:
http://massgraves.info/
Otherwise known as 'war crimes.'
Who wants to handle the other two?
>...classic account of how this church was invented by a sex-mad tyrant and some greedy adventurers, built on monumental robbery, torture, and rivers of blood...
Hmm, sound familiar?
One begins to understand their 'empathy' with the desert death cult...
Britain May Ban 15 Militant Groups
Published: October 11, 2005
LONDON, Oct. 10 - The British government unveiled plans on Monday to outlaw 15 foreign Islamic militant groups as part of its campaign against terrorism following the July bombings here.
Home Secretary Charles Clarke, Britain's senior law enforcement official, published a list of the groups and said he would seek Parliament's approval to "proscribe" them under counterterrorism laws approved in 2000.
The groups include Ansar al-Sunna, a group based in northern Iraq that has taken responsibility for suicide attacks in Kurdish areas and is believed to be an offshoot of Ansar al-Islam, another group in the region that was also on the British list.
The Home Office said the groups would be effectively outlawed, and that anyone charged with being a member or supporter could face a prison term of up to 10 years and have their assets frozen.
In past years, Britain has banned 25 foreign groups, including Al Qaeda, and 14 groups in Northern Ireland, including the Irish Republican Army and various Protestant militant groups.
"Proscription is an important power and not one to be used lightly," Mr. Clarke said on Monday. The list published on Monday included Islamic militant groups associated with Libya, Somalia, Morocco, Bangladesh and Pakistan. Some were said to have been formed in Afghanistan in the 1990's.
Last July 7, four bombers killed 52 people and themselves on three subway trains and a bus in London's worst peacetime attack. Two weeks later, attackers staged what seemed to have been a copycat attack which caused no direct casualties because the explosives failed to detonate.
Since the attacks, Britain has promised to tighten its antiterrorism laws through measures such as extending the period for detention without charge or trial from 14 days to three months.
Mr. Clarke said the list published on Monday underlined "the need to maintain a vigorous approach to dealing with terrorists and their supporters." He said Britain wished to signal "that we are not prepared to tolerate terrorism here or anywhere in the world."
How pathetic is this? What ever came of the 500 "militant" clerics that -Blair promised- would be deported?
Now, after how many years of ignorance and stupidity, year after year of allowing thousands and thousands of Islamic Infil-traitors to settle in the land, to spread hatred and sedition, to scam the welfare system, to intimidate, blackmail, kill, rape, rob (whatever Mohammedans do naturally) and to give them VOTE,
(this is only possible in Absurdistan, Animal- farm revisited)
Now, after all this, the polit-props of Great-Britain want to be seen "soing something"...
Thank you very much, but it just don't cut the mustard...
agter
Gary:
the best responses to KT's idea of "peace" would come from Benedict Spinoza as to what peace is, and this isn't merely an absence of hostilities but rather a secure state, free from intimidation, and what George Orwell had to say about pacifism/non-intervention sentiments expressed by the Left in WW II and Chris Hitchens re: the Middle East today.
I have a train to catch, otherwise, I'd elaborate. If you have the time, check hitchensweb.com.
It's all part of the multi-culti Orwellian newspeak and another brainwashing exercise. Apologise for your worthless culture and way of life. They'll be apologising for being Christians next.
No need, Waterdragon. Soon as you mentioned Spinoza I knew what you meant. I quite agree.
While they're at it, the church may as well apologize to the moderate NAZIs, too. After all, only a few of them were radical warriors. Certainly, most were well-meaning and were NAZI in name only. PCUSA should have no problem with that concept, according their own high opinion of themselves.
Gary:
My recommendations re: Hitchens is to do with his excellent commentary on Orwell's excellent analysis of "intellectual pacifism" and not Spinoza's definition of peace.
"The second principle, or motivation, that drives Hitchens is his distrust of pacifist criticisms of the war, a war which Hitchens believes has a humanitarian purpose. This skepticism likely derives in large part from Hitchens' study and admiration of George Orwell. Hitchens - who has published an excellent essay on Orwell, Why Orwell Matters - quite rightly applies many of Orwell's astute observations to the politics of the day. In particular, I believe Hitchens was greatly influenced by Orwell's piece (which he cites explicitly in his essay) Notes on Nationalism, authored in 1945. Here is the part quoted:
*********
"PACIFISM The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to the taking of life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists whose real though unadmitted motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration of totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writings of younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States.
[...]
"Pacifist literature abounds with equivocal remarks which, if they mean anything, appear to mean that statesmen of the type of Hitler are preferable to those of the type of Churchill, and that violence is perhaps excusable if it is violent enough. After the fall of France, the French pacifists, faced by a real choice which their English colleagues have not had to make, mostly went over to the Nazis, and in England there appears to have been some small overlap of membership between the Peace Pledge Union and the Blackshirts. Pacifist writers have written in praise of Carlyle, one of the intellectual fathers of Fascism. All in all it is difficult not to feel that pacifism, as it appears among a section of the intelligentsia, is secretly inspired by an admiration for power and successful cruelty.
*******
"I think if you understand Orwell's observations here you will also understand Hitchens' cutting attacks on hypocritical war critics like George Galloway or Michael Moore. In these and other critics he sees Orwell's cruel pacifist, thus he points to Galloway's standing shoulder to shoulder with bloody dictators like Saddam Hussein and Syrian President Bashar al-Asad or exposes Michael Moore's praise of murderous terrorists as 'Minute Men'. Such conduct, in Hitchens' eyes, fits quite perfectly in Orwell's crosshairs."
I'm sure the above will remind you of someone who likes to post around here.
Here's the URL to the entire blog about Hitchens and Orwell:
http://outsidethewhale.blogspot.com/2005/09/understanding-christopher-hitchens.html
And Hitchens himself writing in Slate about the recent anti-regime change protests:
http://www.slate.com/?id=2126913&nav=tap2/
A memo to otter-fisher:
It is a foregone conclusion that "MODERATE ISLAM" will NOT win out. It cannot (it never does--as Islamic history has repeatedly shown). Because "moderate Islam" does not fit the overall ideological mold of the Qur'an.
How does one moderate such concepts as:"paradise is under the shade of the swords," or, "enjoy the good things gotten during war," or (MY FAVORITE) "And when the sacred months have passed, slay the infidels everywhere they are found, besiege them, set every strategem of war upon them..." Such a mentality is doomed by its own extreme nature and were it to be diluted, it would no longer exist. If you will, Islam is completely DEFINED by its own inherent extreme-ness.
The Islamic world is built on such concepts from the Qur'an. And they are as I have shown often extreme and brutal. Hence the extreme and harsh nature of the Islamicized region of the globe. As Robert Spencer once remarked "I am having trouble locating moderate Islam." I am too. It's not out there.
The Islamicized parts of the world are built upon the Qur'an for the reason that Islamic leaders cling to the notion (myth?) that the Qur'an is the supreme law laid down by the most supreme being that exists --al-lah. They may NOT change any of it. Those who do are basically considered heretics or "infidels."
Islamic ideology cannot be changed as it is trapped by its own origins and internal logic. There is no "Moderate Qur'an." The Qur'an has only one voice and its messages are EXPLICITLY clear and violent--and non-moderate.
Comparing the Qur'an and the bible is like trying to compare a vacuum cleaner with a pair of scissors.