Andrew G. Bostom in FrontPage discusses Cardinal Pell's anti-dhimmitude (many important news links in the original):
At the close of a compelling, thoroughly documented address (delivered April 2, 2006, at The Legatus Summit, Naples, Florida) entitled, “Islam and Western Democracies,” Cardinal George Pell, the Archbishop of Sydney, posed four salient questions for his erstwhile Muslim interlocutors wishing to engage in meaningful interfaith dialogue:1) Do they believe that the peaceful suras of the Koran are abrogated by the verses of the sword? (see here, pp. 67-75)
2) Is the program of military expansion (100 years after Muhammad’s death Muslim armies reached Spain and India) to be resumed when possible?
3) Do they believe that democratic majorities of Muslims in Europe would impose Shari’a (Islamic religious) law? (see here)
4) Can we discuss Islamic history (here and here) -- even the hermeneutical problems around the origins of the Koran (see here, here, here, and here) -- without threats of violence?
Media attention was focused almost exclusively on the Cardinal’s statement that, “In my own reading of the Koran, I began to note down invocations to violence. There are so many of them, however, that I abandoned this exercise after 50 or 60 or 70 pages”—an unassailable observation, given, for example that sura (chapter) 9 alone comprises in its entirety a series of timeless war proclamations against Jews, Christians, and pagans (i.e., the latter being Hindus, Buddhists, and Animists)—recording, as per believing Muslims, the “uncreated word” of Allah himself. (See Robert Spencer’s insightful analysis of the detailed Koranic musings and resulting justifications for violence penned [especially p. 4 of this letter] by University of North Carolina [UNC] jihadist, Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, who tried to slaughter UNC students by running them over with a rented SUV).These discussions on Koranic incitement to violence by Muslims (I participated in one such brief discussion, here, on the Bill O’Reilly Show, Wednesday May 10, 2006), unfortunately, overshadowed the crux of Cardinal Pell’s speech—framed by his closing questions to Muslims—questions which Muslims must address without equivocation if they are in fact ready for honest dialogue with those of other faiths. Moreover, I would add two “preliminary” questions to the Cardinal’s four if the goal is to transcend the usual Muslim da’wa (i.e., proselytization) sessions and engage in a forthright discussion of the profound differences between Islam’s perception of Judaism and Christianity, and how believers in these two faiths perceive their own religious traditions. Specifically:
i) What are the implications of these Muslim beliefs vis a vis Jews: Koranic verses labeling Jews as malevolent enemies of Islam, and disobedient slayers of their own prophets who suffered justifiable abasement, including, for some, transformation into apes and swine; or the more profoundly hateful oral tradition, preserved in the hadith, which maintains that the perfidious Jews caused Muhammad’s protracted, excruciating death from poisoning, and fomented sectarian strife in early Islam by promoting heresies that threatened the unity of the Muslim community (umma)?ii) What are the implications of the Muslim belief that “Isa”—the Muslim Jesus—is merely a Muslim prophet whose ultimate “job description” includes the destruction of Christianity (i.e., the canonical hadith that this Muslim Jesus—who was never crucified—the perfidious Jews prodding the Roman’s to kill Isa’s “body double”—will return as a to break the cross, kill the pig, and end the payment of the (humiliating) jizya- “He will fight the people for the cause of Islam. He will break the cross, kill swine, and abolish jizyah. Allah will perish all religions except Islam.”)?
Dr. Habib Malik, in an eloquent address delivered February 3, 2003 at the at the 27th annual Council for Christian Colleges and Universities Presidents Conference decried the platitudinous “least common denominators” paradigm which dominates what he aptly termed the contemporary “dialogue industry”:
We’re all three Abrahamic religions, we’re the three Middle Eastern monothesims, the Isa of the Koran is really the same as the Jesus of the New Testament…. This is politicized dialogue. This is dialogue for the sake of dialogue. Philosophically speaking, this is what Kierkegaard called idle talk, snakke in Danish; what Heidegger called Gerede; what Sartre called bavardage. In other words, if this is dialogue, it’s pathetic… it needs to be transcended, and specifically to concentrate, to focus on the common ethical foundation for most religions can also be very misleading. Because when you get into the nitty-gritty, you find that even in what you supposed were common ethical foundations, there are vast differences, incompatibilities. Suicide bombers is one recent example. Condoned by major authoritative Muslim voices; completely unacceptable by Christianity.Over three years later Cardinal Pell’s unanswered questions highlight the predictable failure of the feckless “We’re all three Abrahamic religions”, “dialogue for the sake of dialogue” approach to both Muslim-Christian, and Muslim-Jewish dialogue. Until Muslims are willing to address with candor these admittedly wrenching questions, Dr. Malik’s sobering conclusions from his February 2003 speech will remain apposite: "One certainly needs to be open at all times to learn from the Other, including to learn at times that the Other right now has nothing to teach me on a particular issue."
OT
Ayaan Hirsi Ali relocates to the US
http://www.volkskrant.nl/den_haag/article316789.ece/Hirsi_Ali_per_1%A0september_naar_Washington
Robert,
It is good that the important questions are begining to be asked. All that is important is that be honest answers.
Forget about it Big Cat Girl. The one thing that I've learned from dealing with Muslims is that they are a stubborn lot. They always reserve the right to put down other faiths and religions but if you point out the numerous faults with Islam, they become very combative. Just take note of how the supporters of Islam that frequent this website confront the falacies of Islam. They don't! And those that do, won't address the many suras that support jihad, dhimmilitude, and other violent acts on non-Muslims. Muslims just aren't open to the ideal of an open dialog concerning Islam.
One thing Muslims do well is make themselves look like the victim, which is why they make good politicians, hence they have the power to f$%k us over.
Ironman Hondo,
Right how I think it is most important that critics of Islam like Cardinal Pell (and us) focus on exposing Islam. The target audience is infidels, to generate a prevailing view of Islam in the infidel west that is accurate. There is another audience that can be effected by this: assimilated Muslims, "Muslims for identification purposes only". These people, and I know and work with many, are often open to critical analysis of religion and it is within the realm of the possible that they can be dislodged from the camp of the global Jihad. I'm with Ali Sina on this one: making Muslims embarassed to be Muslim can work. If Muslim spokespeople are busy fighting a rearguard action avoiding hard questions they will eventually be shown to be foolish; it is only a matter of time.
Quilybo;
I agree that Islam must be exposed. On this we're on the same page. As a minister, I address this issue whenever it comes up. I mix no bones about the threat of Islam and the mindset of a vast majority of Muslims towards Biblie believers and Christians. I even run the risk of bodily harm from Black Muslims. There is a family that attend my church and all of the the males in this family are strongly pro-Farrakhan thus pro-Arab Muslim though these same Arabs really don't call the Black Muslim or the Nation of Islam a true Islamic body.
I'm glad that you've found some Muslims that are open to the on going debate about Islam and the effect that it is having on influencing world wide jihad. I, personally wouldn't go so far as to make the statement about "embarassing Muslims about Islam." I'd go as far as saying that true Islam being reveiled to the uninformed followers or the faithful. The religious leaders of both Islam and Christianity go to great lengths to keep the truths of their faiths hidden from the masses. In Islam, it's about domination. In Christianity, it's all about money. For both, control of the thought process of the masses through misdirection and illusion.
The good thing is that at least there is the internet websites that are confronting Muslims when it comes to issues of the contradtictions seen in the Koran and Hadiths. Also information about websites about former Muslims.
Ah!
I suspect this was what the Dutch authorities were after all along. Make her life so difficult that she goes elsewhere - "embarrassment" solved.
Quijybo, the muslims are already on the track of making themselves look foolish.
The cartoon wars was probably the best. Total stupidity. Holding up signs inciting violence didn't make them look too smart. Of course their lying at every turn doesn't help their "cause".
Seeing hundreds or thousand men rioting, burning, looting, when they should have been working.
Also the norm for them also makes them look foolish. Prayer 5 times a day...no wonder nothing gets done. Covering their women shows they are insecure. Lying. Running around a meteorite. And just their stupid belief in a book that science has proved them wrong, and yet, there they go.
They haven't learned some of the principles of life. A man's word is his honor. If you lie , you have NO honor. Treat people like you want to be treated. That means no beheading, raping, beating their women, etc. And, you HAVE to work. A healthy man who won't work isn't worth a plug nickel. He has no pride. And one of the best old sayings is, you reap what you sow.
Does it really make you muslim men feel proud to know you make lousy husbands, fathers or neighbors?
Bostom nails it, again.
If you have any doubts about all of this todo about Islamic history, you need to get his collection of original source material. It is as horrific as anything I have read regarding the Totenkopfen or Red Army's atrocities in the Eastern provinces during WWII.
I think a question concerning their prophet's behaviour and serving as a role model would be in order, but that's just me.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060515/ap_on_re_eu/vatican_islam_1
VATICAN CITY - Pope Benedict XVI urged Islamic countries to ensure religious rights for Christian migrants Monday while also saying Christians should continue welcoming Muslim immigrants with open arms.
Benedict stressed the need for "reciprocity" in Christian-Muslim relations during a speech to members of the pontifical council for migrants. The Vatican office is studying the issue of migration to and from Muslim countries during its annual meeting this week.
Cardinal Renato Martino, who heads the migrant office, has complained recently that while Muslim immigrants are often welcomed into largely Christian countries in Europe and allowed to practice their faith freely, Christian immigrants in the Islamic world are denied those same rights.
Benedict said Christians were called to "open their arms and their hearts to everyone," regardless of their countries of origin.
"Obviously, it is also to be hoped that Christians who emigrate to countries with an Islamic majority find welcome and respect of their religious identities there," he said.
"More and more the importance of reciprocity in dialogue is felt."
Benedict has called for respect for religious rights for Christian minorities in the past.
In a January speech to Vatican-based ambassadors, he lamented that some countries "seriously violate" religious freedom for minorities. He did not name any, but the Vatican has expressed concern about the plight of Roman Catholic minorities in countries such as China, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the Middle East.
Did the Vatican clear Cardinal Pell's remarks prior to?
That would be a key piece of information, because if so, it would throw a light upon the thoughts of the present Pope, the former PanzerKardinal, Josef Ratzinger.
If Pope Benedict XVI were to begin to educate people about the long history of contestaion between the Church and islam, were he to instruct certain key prelates to begin making these types of speeches, which would surely be provocative, it would indicate the Church is beginning to step out on this decisive battlefield.
Sooner or later, the Church has to speak forcefully against all totalitarian movements. It's begun to speak up to the Chinese, after trying to placate Peking. And now, after a long silence, it looks like the Vatican is taking islam deadly seriously. The Church can try to make temporary arrangements with noxious regimes, the concordat it reached with Hitler Germany comes to mind, but in the final analysis, at the final resort, the Church has to take a stand. Perhaps the Pope thinks its time for the Vatican to be heard.
If the Church is serious about restoring the moral life to Western Europe, then it has to take seriously the problem of muslim demographics. What good would it do to try to bring back real Christianity to Europe, if the muslims are going to take over Europe in several decades.
Cardinal Pell’s speech has many facets and is recommended reading for all on JW. Some items that I think stand out are:
(1) Cardinal Pell’s citation of the German book by Christoph Luxenberg – He reminds that the koran was originally written in Syriac, and was not translated into Arabic until 150 years or so later when a written form of Arabic was developed. Apparently there was a mistranslation of a phrase that has greatly motivated suicide bombers – the Syriac word for “grapes” was mistranslated as “maidens” in the description of heavenly rewards.
(2) The translation was from a text that was more or less harmonious with the New Testament and the Syriac Christian liturgy. This would imply that the translators rewrote the original to correspond to their own ideas of what the Islamic religion should be.
(3) The great challenge to the West in containing Islam is the nearly complete substitution of secularism for religion, particularly in Europe. He makes the great point that pagan secularism is no match for Islam with the clear implication that religion must make a comeback if Western Europe is to survive.
(4) Another great challenge to the West is the tragic falloff in birthrates, which is exactly opposite to the Islamic birth rates. He backs it up with some interesting comparisons, forecasting a 2050 Yemen at about the same population as Russia.
There are more; he crammed a lot of ideas in those six pages. I wish our Beltway geniuses would read it.
Bostom writes of Islamic Christology:
the Muslim Jesus—is merely a Muslim prophet whose ultimate “job description” includes the destruction of Christianity (i.e., the canonical hadith that this Muslim Jesus—who was never crucified—the perfidious Jews prodding the Roman’s to kill Isa’s “body double”—will return as a to break the cross, kill the pig, and end the payment of the (humiliating) jizya...
Bostom should have included the more startling "job description" of the eschatological Muslim Jesus: he will be the Last Caliph of a global Islamic Caliphate, which will reign utterly dominant (having mass-murdered all non-Muslims on Earth with Jesus as military leader--that's why there will be no jizya, because there will be nobody left to pay it!) until it blends with the Eternal Paradise.
Muslims are practiced for centuries at telling you whatever lies will lull you back to sleep.
Ask all the supposedly tough questions you like.
They can make soft preztels of them all.
Through obfuscation, misdirection, special pleading, victim status, abrogation, the unity of the "People of the Book", ad absurdum.
It is more important to see what they do.
Their weasel words are soporific silly putty.
Their actions, sickening smelling salts.
Answer to Cardinal Bell
No, yes, yes, and HELL no.
Pell was wrong on one big item the Koran was written down while the Prophet was alive and the Arab have a written language for along time before this.
DefenderofIslam - You evidently did not read Cardinal Pell's article. He was quoting a book review of the German language book by Christoph Luxemberg who had researched the language of the time of Mohammed and found that it was Syriac or Syro-Aramaic.
Mohammed, who could neither read nor write, supposedly dictated the Koran to scribes who wrote it in Syro-Aramaic. At that time, apparently, according to Luxemberg's research, Arabic was not a written language. It was not until 150 years later more or less, that the translation was made from Syro-Aramaic to written Arabic.
I have only attempted a brief explanation here to correct the record, since you were incorrect about Cardinal Pell's article. Pell was citing the research of a scholar.
You should read the original paper and reference 17 if you are interested in finding out more about the huge discrepancy between this research and what Muslims are taught about the origins of the Koran.
You should particularly check it out if you are harboring thoughts about becoming a suicide bomber.