As I noted here, the letter from the 138 Islamic scholars, despite the ululations of joy it has inspired in the West, is extremely problematic. By not even mentioning the Qur'an's characterization of key elements of orthodox Christianity as "unbelief," even to explain them away, the scholars have left themselves open to charges of, at the very least, disingenuousness.
By Tom Heneghan for Reuters (thanks to Sr. Soph):
PARIS (Reuters) - The top Vatican official for Islam has praised a novel Muslim call for dialogue but said real theological debate with them was difficult as they saw the Koran as the literal word of God and would not discuss it in depth.Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, in an interview on Friday with the French Catholic daily La Croix, also said Christians would have to discuss curbs on building churches in the Islamic world in the dialogue advocated by 138 Muslim scholars in the appeal.
His interview, coming after mostly positive comments by other Catholic Islam experts, signaled the world's largest Christian church wanted a serious dialogue with Muslims that did not avoid some fundamental issues dividing the religions.
"Muslims do not accept that one can discuss the Koran in depth, because they say it was written by dictation from God," Tauran said. "With such an absolute interpretation, it is difficult to discuss the contents of faith."
The fact that Muslims can build mosques in Europe while many Islamic states limit or ban church building cannot be ignored, he said. "In a dialogue among believers, it is fundamental to say what is good for one is good for the other," he said.
The adherents of a supremacist creed, on the other hand, don't believe that what is good for one is good for the other. So the response to this, if any comes, will be interesting.
I remain fascinated by this story. In another thread, JW/DW readers can read about Moslem-on-Moslem viiolence, including the Shia-Sunni feud goinf back to near the beginning of Islam itself. Yet here are 138 scholars, purportedly representing every sect of Islam, who can coordinate well enough to author this letter. Something is fishy all right. On the one hand, Moslems slitting each others' throats because they can't agree on the time of day. On the other hand, scholars "representing all sects of Islam" penning this letter with the expectations that they will be taken seriously, that there is indeed an authority with which non-Moslems can have a meaningful dialogue. It just doesn't add up.
If for argument's sake these 138 are serious and well-meaning, what serious expectation can there be any modification to centuries of Islamic arrogance and aggression? If not, then who arranged this little charade, this little diversion or smokescreen? Who's the puppet master?
I am glad that the Catholic church is taking a firm stand against islamo nazism. I wish the previous pope had been this firm.
From the Reuters article: "Muslims revere the Koran as the literal word of God while most Christian theologians -- and some Muslim intellectuals -- say sacred scriptures are the work of divinely inspired humans and can be challenged and reinterpreted.
Pope Benedict is a key figure because his Regensburg speech last year implying Islam was violent and irrational sparked bloody protests in the Muslim world and prompted the Muslim scholars to unite to seek better inter-faith understanding.
Have these Islamic 'scholars' ever condemn the Pope riots last year? On what leg of authority do they stand to honor 'reciprocity'? Pope John Paul said reciprocity is key. Muslims fail on this point repeatedly, have for 1400 years, still ban churches and temples in many countries or make it nearly impossible to build and repair existing ones, all in the name of their 'uncreated' word of Allah? (Not the word of God, mind.) I hope the Vatican response will be firm and insist on both reciprocity and openness in dialogue, which means all points of Koranic scriptures are open to discussion. It also means Christians define their sacred scriptures as they see fit, not as defined by the Koran. Really should be fun when this shiite hits the fan, stand back.
A word of caution to Christian theologians in interfaith debates with Muslims.
Muslims may not use our Christian scriptures to overpower us with their Koranic scriptures. Hold them to the points of reason within their texts. And then if any points of reason in theirs connects with any in ours, acknowledge that, but do not submit.
When they can acknowledge the violence and enslaving principles of their Koranic scriptures, then we may acknowledge the 'religion of peace'. Otherwise, theirs as it stands at present is nothing more than a barbarian quasi-religious cult of war. They may not use 'equality' to overpower us, it is unreasonable. But we can use reason to find contradiction in their claims. Stick to the reciprocity principle, and reason, and see if this dialogue is even possible. It may not be from the start, because their goal is to overpower, only that, and not the truth. So probe them for their intentions at the very beginning. They will lie, but their intentions will soon become clear.
Which is exactly why real dialogue is not being called for by most of those on the Muslim side. No, this is the Muslims saying, "you should treat Islamic global theocratic ambition as at least as worthy of your respect as is the Western belief in separation of religion and state. You should respect our desire to dominate you under Islamic law, reduce you thereby to second class citizens, and gradually extirpate your religions and your secularism. If you don't accept this, you are disrespecting Islam. Respect Islam, and you will be safe, and we will call that 'dialogue.' "
Some dialogue. Dialogue would affect the usual Islamic belief system the way water affected the Wicked Witch of the West. So don't expect real dialogue any time soon. But hope for it nevertheless.
Of course there will be no real dialogue. One need not venture too far into the past of Pope Benedict XVI (Cardinal Ratzinger) to see that he believes Islam and Christianity to be 'the epitome of incongruence.'
As far his predecessor, John Paul II-- who not only kissed the Qu'ran but forgave his Muslim attacker, who was able to win release and attack again--now there is a stumbling block that drove many a traditional Catholic into the St. Pius X camp, or the Southern Baptist Convention. Neither of those groups have difficulty grasping just what Islam means.
I love this pope. He's not afraid to proclaim the truth. Oh, he'll be charitable about it, but he is no sucka.
Human life, liberty and our pursuit of happiness is worth more that words on a piece of paper.
If you want to believe in something, fine. But do not believe that it gives you the right to demand that the rest of us follow your rules or respect the communal insanity you practice.
I find the Catholic 'Islamic scholars' too mealy mouthed. I read an article by them and gagged in their acceptance of islam.
Here is one of those articles I could barely gag through:
http://www.catholicvoiceoakland.org/07-04-09/inthisissue8.htm
The Catholics write up stuff without even having one iota of a clue. I wrote a response to this article - and never got a response back. I guess I didn't really expect one since I am just a lowly woman - and the Church and its hierarchy is very prejudiced that way.
I even emailed the Pope on a more general subject concerning islam, the Churches lack of leadership and appeasement of muslims and the lack of support of all of our Christian brothers and Jews who are experiencing the cruel hand of islam. (if they cannot lead because they are too old then they need to start selecting Popes who are younger and have leadership abilities in these times!) And yes, I figured he would not read it, but one of his little secretaries probably would censor it because it might offend their sensitive selves. I also expected that not even a Cardinal or a priest would read it due to us lowly earth forms not able to even grasp their scholarly selves. (yes, this is so heavily sarcastic that it reeeeeks!)
Our Catholic 'leaders' sit in their palaces and I be they just feel oh, so holy. I guess I shouldn't interrupt that.
Anyone who wants to understand Benedict XVI's position toward Islam should read up on Fr Samir Khalil Samir sj. He is an Egyptian born Jesuit from St. Joseph's University in Beruit and is one of the Church's leading experts on Islam. He takes a very tough stand against the human rights abuses of non-Muslims and women under Islamic law. I'd bet that he is the real brains behind the Church's changing attitude toward the Islamic world under Benedict XVI.
Here are some of his articles:
Fr Samir Khalil Samir, SJ - Articles & Interviews
http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2007/04/fr-samir-khalil-samir-sj-articles.html
The crisis in Islam
by Samir Khalil Samir, sj
http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&size=A&dos=73
Multiculturalism and Islam: suicide of the West and women’s rights
by Samir Khalil Samir, sj
http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=8664&size=A
The only "dialog" needed with the gnostic heresy that is Islam:
"Repent, and rejoin the fold, forgiven."
Islam has nothing to teach its parent faiths except how not to distort their original texts
Muslim theologians at least believe seriously in their skewed dogmas.
When will Christians and Jews be as self-certain in reply?
B16 as Cardinal Ratzinger wrote a ton of books, several of which addressed the Islamic and Eurabia issues:
-Europe Today and Tomorrow
-Without Roots -The West, relativism, christianity, Islam
-Values in a Time of Upheaval
-Christianities and the Crisis of Cultures
I think he was shocked by the severity of reaction to his quotation of the Byzantine prelate - especially when at least one nun was killed by a Muslim shooter in Africa.
It is a tough balancing act when you have so many unarmed "troops" scattered all over the world. He is calling attention to the churches in Muslim lands. But it is Islamodoctrine - Koran - that the churches cannot be repaired, and the christians must be dhimmis.
His writings consistently fall back on the Western idea of reason. A major problem is that reason is not in the Islamic vocabulary.
Muslim theologians at least believe seriously in their skewed dogmas.
When will Christians and Jews be as self-certain in reply?
Posted by: profitsbeard
Why is that? The common thread is that all who want to control others firmly seriously believe in their supremacist domination ideology. Hitler was a serious believer in his demented racial supremacy, the Bolsheviks believed in their Marxist historical supremacy, Stalin believed in his soviet communist supremacy, any cult will believe they are supreme. They proved their 'serious belief' by killing millions.
The disadvantage of reason and seeking truth, or the scientific method, is that we are never really sure we got it right, so we do not have the same kind of primitive gestalt of believing with absolute certainty. That is a function of dogma, like the Inquisition five centuries ago was absolutely sure of its belief as it tortured and killed people into 'saving' their souls. Today's Islamists work on the same dogmatic principle of absolute certainty that they are supposed to subdue us. They are totally absolutely wrong, but they do not understand that.
Submission, which is what Islam means, is their total supremacist world domination belief system. So Christians and Jews, who graduated from this primitive model of absolute certainty, cannot have the same rabid belief as the Moslems, who still live by a 14 century old primitive dogma of absolute submission for everyone. They are therefore forced to believe seriously, or else are punished for failing to 'submit' totally to their primitive controlling ideology. Religion or God, or truth and reason, have nothing to do with this. Submission means control. We can counter this only with our firm belief in our freedom as a basic inalienable right to truth and reason. Of that we must be self-certain with the same gestalt of our freedom as they have in their primitive dogmas, and fight the supremacist world domination total control ideology of Islam.
Let Freedom be our guide to overcome this supremacist total control world ideology of a primitive Mohammedan religio-cult dogma. We can do this successfully by consistently falling back on the Western idea of Reason. Press them on this issue over and over again, but do not be surprised if they fail to understand it. After 14 centuries of mind stupefying submission to irrational superstitions, the 'slaves of allah' have a very limited understanding of reason,, except for cleverness in a devious and deceitful sort of way to weasel concessions from those who they are seeking to subdue, by taking away our freedoms. The have absolutely no understanding of freedom. Mohammedan slaves understand only submission, obedience, and will be totally irrational in pursuing these goals for everyone universally. Freedom stands in their way.
Press them with absolute certainty on the 'separation of religious beliefs and government' and the results are clear. Our Christian scholars have the best weapon Christ gave against this supremacist world control ideology: "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's." Stand firm on this. It's not in their Koran.
I was reading at Irene Lancaster's blog - she's UK Jewish, recently made aliyah - and I gather that the Jews are supposed to be getting THEIR 'Letter from the Muslims' soon. One wonders what will be in it. And whether the rabbis and the priests will compare their billets doux, like Mistress Ford and Mistress Page do when they get their letters from Falstaff?
Million dollar question: will Richard Dawkin, Hitchens, Harris et al(atheists and agnostics of the world, unite!) receive a letter?
Will the Dalai Lama get one?
What about the Hindus?
The Chinese Communist Party?
PS - I urge everyone here to do a little quiet googling with the names of the Muslim scholars who signed off on that 'Letter to the Christians'. Very instructive if one uses the MEMRI sieve; the Jihadwatch and Dhimmiwatch archives are also helpful. Some of these people are not very nice at all.
One at least is a charming fellow who insisted that Muslims must do all they can to obtain weapons of mass destruction. Another - Godlass - runs the Muslim Propaganda course RoP (TM) at Georgetown U - check the Jihadwatch archives to find discussion, and Hugh's clinical dissection of his course.
Battle_of_Tours-
Agree on all points.
The Beatitudes beat the hell out of anything Mohammad spewed.
Battle_of_Tours,
Excellent piece. I agree, freedom trumps Islam - but you have to really believe in freedom for this to work.
Please comment on our experiment in Iraq.
Posted by: Davegreybeard
Freedom must be earned, not given away. Iraqis who desire freedom, given half a chance at getting it, must pick up the burden and carry it themselves. We cannot ever impose freedom on any other group, same as it was not imposed on us. We fought and died for it.
If freedom rings in the Iraqi heart (at present this is a big question mark), then let them prove to the world they are free. Otherwise, if they fail, either now or in the future, the whole experiment of Iraq, a 'one worlder' experiment of multicularist relativistm-plurality of imposing 'liberal' values on others, will fail. The whole Liberal ideology of all cultures wanting the same thing is itself a 'supremacist' ideology of control, and not empowering freedom. You cannot make slaves free if they fight you to remain slaves, and die for slavery. It's up to Iraq now to die for freedom.
For future dialogues with Islam to be meaningful, we should get a clearer picture of what they think "freedom" means, as an inalienable right for all. Does this mean anything to them? Or is their Sharia idea of freedom, the 'freedom to impose' their religious sect's laws, the 'freedom' to obey in submission, is all they understand of what freedom means? The only hope I see for the world of Islam is to secularize and separate out the religion from their government. Then they have a chance to become free. Iraq is off to a poor start, as is Afghanistan.
True Islam and free choice cannot exist in the same house.
If it is mandated and seen to that free elections are held, does not this weaken the hold of Islam? For instance the Shiite “militants” that were elected to positions of power (and are now abusing it) will likely be voted out by the unhappy populace during the next cycle. Dose this process not teach and encourage the principle of questioning those in power – and thereby produce a small step toward “western style” democracy?
Your thoughts on this?
Another thought.
We are the teachers of democratic freedom – it really does not matter what an Islamists idea of freedom is. It is up to us to demonstrate to him what it is and how it works.
Asking an Islamist what he thinks of freedom is like asking a cannibal what he thinks of vegetarians.
Asking an Islamist what he thinks of freedom is like asking a cannibal what he thinks of vegetarians.
Posted by: Davegreybeard
Touche! Yes, I think baby steps towards freedom is what Islam needs. How do you undo 14 centuries of wrong thinking to keep out the 7th century out of the 21st? Big job?
There's the problem. Teach them, cajole them, beat them, but how do you reverse 14 centuries of tribal thinking?... How much time have you got? They're primitives, so take it from there.
“There's the problem. Teach them, cajole them, beat them, but how do you reverse 14 centuries of tribal thinking?... How much time have you got?”
As long as it takes. The alternative (as Hugh has repeatedly stated) is endless war.
I do not have patients for “endless war” (how long does that take, by the way) and so seek a way to drain the swamp. Even if it is only a cupful at a time, it has a better feel to it than hunkering down in the trenches.
As one cowboy said “I’d rather fight them over there than fight them over here”
yippee ky aaa