Coptic pope apologizes for bishop's questioning of Qur'anic verses

Exactly man! I keep begging Robert to go on Jon Stewart.... but, sigh, no luck. :(

He's no Tucker Carlson though.... Robert, kick Stewart's ass and put those liberal nitwits in their place!

What have you been smoking? Robert has already been refuted by many people (who took the time to get an education).

Spencer when refuted simply uses his intellectual cop-outs (Taqiyya and Abrogation).

The people over at 60 Minutes sold their souls decades ago. I expect little truth from them. They must be fought, that's all.

Hey Evil Taqiyya Artist,

How you doin' buddy? What country you from?

I am an ex-Muslim. Are you yourself a Muslim "believer", ETA?

If so, why? Do you not know that this is the year 2110?

How could you possibly justify your adherence to such a primitive, barbaric, fundamentally unjust religion?

Do you not know that Muhammad was an evil, murderous mad man and that you are in fact stuck in a cult and that your Muslim "brothers" are obliged to kill you should you simply decide to leave Islam for your own reasons?

Evil Taqiyya Artist wrote:

"Prior to the 7th Century Arab invasion, Egypt was majority Christian."

So? What do you want Spencer? A deportation of Muslims from Egypt?
................

Do you agree with Muslims oppressing, threatening, and murdering Copts because they constitute a majority in Egypt? Would you do the same in any country where you gain a majority?

Or, conversely, do you champion minority rights—including the rights of the individual—to practice freedom of conscience and freedom of speech? Or would you consider such a thing "un-Islamic"?

Refuted by many people? Well, go ahead and name a few, as Marisol already challenged and, while you're at it, could you get the author of the next article you criticize down correctly, as Marisol has already indicated. Holy hell, can't you get anything right? In any case, generalizations without examples are ordinarily quite worthless. You help prove this point, just as Islamic devotees like you regularly help prove that freedom and Islam are incompatible.

I mean when was the last time a Muslim openly and without reservation or conditionalizing said that the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, which would include the right to criticize any religion pursuant to this amendment's freedom of speech guarantee, and Islam are not at odds with one another? The choice is very stark. It's either freedom or Islam. Can't have both. I'm going with the former. Those on the wrong side of history, like you, are with the latter. Oh yeah, almost forgot, Islam is doomed because freedom and truth are stronger than the warped religion which is Islam. You won't understand this but then you've already amptly demonstrated you miss a great many things.

Spencer is being dishonest here

"The construction of new churches or fixing of old ones is forbidden under Islamic law. That is why it provokes violence from Egypt to Indonesia"

You do realize Spencer, that almost all curches in Islamic countries were built under Muslim rule?

"That is why it provokes violence from Egypt to Indonesia"

Any proof for this statement? I've read about Indonesian Islamic leaders who have condemned the protests. It seems to me that most of the people opposed to the churches are hooligans--basically your Muslim equivalent.

At least they don't exegerate their "Rallies to stop the Christianization of Indonesia".

Oh! Sorry ma'am!

I didn't know Horowitz had a lady-friend working for him. I'm glad that you're hear to add a feminine touch to this hate site.

Anyways, Islamic law allows the rebuilding of churches.

An example being when the Fatimid Caliph after the erratic Al-Hakim allowed the rebuilding of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

How about you get a real job instead of attempting to write about issues obviously to complex for you?

BTW, where is Spencer? Are you writing articles on subjects that would make him like more of an idiot?

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/09/islamic-accommodations-in-washington-state-jails-power-plays-and-priorities.html

Darn Leftist Stealth Jihadist Islamic Supremacist... (fill in the rest)

Wow!
Have you read about Islam from people other than Spencer?

Reading Bernard Lewis, Pickthall, Karen Armstrong, Sherman Jackson, and countless others.

And basically every evil Muslim who is using their education as a coverup for their deception.

Of course if you believe in the infallibility if Spencer then go ahead and indulge yourself in your fantasies.

You do realize America's secular laws aren't even in compliance with the 10 commandments? I don't know of any religious law that would be in harmony with secular law.

Here is the Treaty of Tripoli, read carefully

"Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

"Of course if you believe in the infallibility if Spencer then go ahead and indulge yourself in your fantasies."
------------------
Another insecure, self-hating/loving Musulman indulging in superiority fantasies (at least the 3rd this week, if my count is correct).

I, for one, don't believe in the infallibility of anyone, that's why I, and many of us around here, have read the Koran, Hadith, Sira, and many other works, independently of anything any specific author has written. I've done that to confirm, or refute, what any particular author writes.

So far, I've confirmed just about everything Spencer has written, independently, and I began with a healthy dose of skepticism.

So you ain't affecting my view in any way, Evil Liar Artist. Well, actually you are: with every post, you help demonstrate the different techniques of taqiyya (lying) and other forms of Islamic misdirection, and how all those lies, half-truths, and obfuscations are generally delivered to the ignorant.

Only problem for you is, there aren't too many ignorant folks around here to fool.

But, you're free to fantasize that there are, as I'm sure you're wont to do.

You still looking for that missing cookie from your Happy Meal?

Islam is doing everything it can to deny and "reinterpret" what's really in the Islamic texts -- for Western consumption. That's what CAIR, MAS, ISNA et. al are all about.

It's a very strange "pride/shame" relationship Muslims seem to have with their "prophet." They're so proud of him, he's their perfect man, al-insan, al-kamil; yet his life and words, as recorded in Hadith and Sira, are so vile and evil to modern, Western sensibilities, that those actions and words are being covered up, denied, and obfuscated in any way possible.

And to answer your question about analyzing Islamic texts as thoroughly as the other religions's texts were analyzed, it is a specious argument to claim that only Muslims should be allowed to render judgments or opinions upon Islamic texts; that is not how scholarship in the West is done, though many Muslims would like it to be. Nevertheless, any serious attempt to do that publicly, nowadays, is consistently shouted down as "racism" and "Islamophobia," whether or not it's a Muslim doing the analyzing, particularly if it's a truthful analysis.

Islam is under a well-deserved siege, and it desperately wants a "privileged" status where nothing about it can be questioned or criticized.

Being "untouchable" is the only way it's safe.

Look at me Marisol! I'm a scholar of Islam!

[DOHA — Prominent scholar Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi approves building churches for Christian citizens of or residents in Muslim countries to meet their needs just as Muslims are being allowed to build mosques in the West.
"There is nothing wrong in building churches for Christian citizens if there is such a need because their numbers have multiplied or because they lack a place to worship as long as it is authorized by the ruler," Qaradawi said.

"This also applies to non-Muslims who came to a Muslim country for work or residence and have grown in numbers and need a church to worship."]

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=1209357797171&pagename=Zone-English-News/NWELayout

Can the Polytheists or the "Idolaters" build new temples in the Islamic Sharia-governed state?

Hello El:), How goes?

I just popped back into JW for a look around as was chuckleing all the way through reading your 1st reply to the Evil Taqiyya One.

Good one! lolll Cheers

Mr. Taqiyya, I'm one of whom forcibly learned Quran and Islam from the primary school to the college, from daily TV shows day and night, and from the next-door mosque (which intentionally put a speaker on our balcony, with no rights for us to object this) and I can testify the Robert Spencer only have about 90% of the knowledge about Islam, the remaining 10% is much worst that he knows or wrote in his books/blog. But no one ever can deny that he one of the most westerners whom have a deep knowledge about IZLAM.

God Bless You Robert and your fellows , don't let America fall

(Sorry For the bad English)

Hello Saleem! Funny how he "advertises" his purpose by his handle, eh? The Evil Lying Whiz will pop in and drop bombs, then skedaddle when the heat gets too hot (or his mommy yells that it's time for bed)!

Obnoxious, semi-literate, boorish. LOL!

Hope all is well with you :)

~Eleanor

I'm sorry Eleanor, I probably didn't make myself clear. The fault is mine. I was not arguing that only Muslims be allowed to investigate the sources of the Quran - not at all.
I was trying to say that if scholars are allowed open inquiry and discover something about the Quran's origins contrary to how they are understood in much of the Muslim world, the dispiriting news would not be accepted by muslims if the scholar delievering that news were non - muslim.
If, for example, an early text of the Quran could be shown to have derived some its suras from a language other than Arabic, well then, claims that many muslims make about the purity of the Quran would have to be false and that fact would be as nothing if it came from say, Princeton, or Yale, or any other school in the US.
The tension on this issue is a little high and its clear that those writing in support of Islam are very defensive. The sacastic tone makes it obvious.
I do not support Islam, even "moderate" Islam whatever that is. I do not hate muslims.
I am a fairly conservative Anglican Christian, and as such, I'm in a very tiny group.
I'm reading the Quran for the third time - an old Rodwell translation. I will read other, more modern translations eventually, and I will be happy to read one suggested the most orthodox of muslims. The differences in translation ought to be very instructive. As I understand what I've read, I don't see how Islam can be reformed if the Quran is the most important text of the faith.
I read French, Latin, and Attic Greek. (I am a classics student) I have a good idea of what problems with translation can be. I won't be learning Arabic however, I have my hands full with Latin and Greek already, so I have to rely on translations to read any of the Islamic books.
I wasn't arguing for anything; I was only asking questions.
Peace

re: Treaty of Tripoli . . .

Would failure to pay tribute, as was (is) the claimed right of Muslims, be cause enough to declare war on America? Such tribute would not, apparently, be demanded between and among member states of the OIC, notwithstanding any other disagreements they may have with one another. If America foreswears that it was not "founded on the Christian religion" then one might expect a reciprocal understanding that the counter party would not use religion, overtly or as a ruse (a pretext), to wage war.

From what I have learned from this site Americans face the same sort of problem as immediately before the Barbary Wars; tribute that is too expensive, beyond being wasteful. (Robert repeatedly points out the waste of such money paid to Pakistan.)

It does not take much speculation to conclude that the OIC feels free to declare as an act of war the burning of any Koran by any private citizen in any state that is not a member of the OIC. And, that such a declaration would act as an injunction upon every self-identified Muslim to wage war.

While the American first amendment recognizes an individual right to free expression, particularly as the core matter of political representation and redress of grievances against the government, it is nevertheless a federal crime to burn the likeness of Benjamin Franklin or Thomas Jefferson, 18 U.S.C. 331. Even a Muslim-slave does not need convincing that this would be foolish and against their own self-interest, regardless of the US federal law making it a crime.

Let's not forget that one of the last insults offered by Saddam Hussein was his refusal to price oil in US Dollars (in favor of the Euro). Who's head should appear on a bill that is recognized by the OIC as the official Sharia-compliant currency for trade among OIC member states, or to accept as tribute?

The case against US government for purchase of Sharia-compliant (i.e., payment of religious tax to wage jihad -- i.e. terror) AIG stock is now at an important stage. Both sides have filed motions for summary judgment.

Order denying government motion to dismiss.
Plaintiff motion for summary judgment.
Robert Spencer's declaration in support. (One must assume that he has been accepted as a qualified expert.)
Defendant motion for summary judgment. (August 3, 2010, where the primary argument is emergency, the sky is falling. Picture a chicken that finds that its head has been recently detached.)

The Barbary Pirates have just moved to a new contemporary stage -- the courtroom. If the judge were faced with a case or controversy where Sharia-compliance meant that the judge has been stripped of authority over other people how might he respond? (Mooted by terrorist acts, and lack of will by the federal government to repel the attack, or to enforce a federal court order.)

Sharia-compliance ultimately leads to our federal judges being as powerless as a Coptic pope, in the face of islamic jihad, and without regard to whether America was or was not a country that was "founded on the Christian religion."

I wasn't arguing for anything; I was only asking questions.
-------------
Oh I know, and I wasn't "yelling" at you!

:)

I was just pointing out the same old (#4) argument that Muslims always make whenever they're questioned about Islam. Those are:

#1. You've taken those murderous words of the Koran completely out of context; "slay the unbelievers wherever you find them" really means "hug them, and together sing kumbaya."

#2. If you can't read it in its original Arabic, you're not worth discussing anything with. And come to think of it, Infidel, even if you can read Arabic you're not worth discussing anything with.

#3. Aisha was at least 17 when Mohammad married her, and some sources say she was 28.

#4. No one but a Muslim who believes like good Muslims believe have any business analyzing Islamic texts. Non-Muslim scholars who have spent their entire lives passionately studying Islam are completely unqualified to speak, or write, or anything, about it.

#5. Just do what Abdul tells you and no one gets hurt.

Seriously, Islam can never be reformed. To do so would require back-burnering Mohammad, and since Islam IS Mohammad, they'll never be able to do it.

He is loved in the Muslim world to a far stronger degree (I believe) than is Jesus amongst Christians.

Muslims deny Judaism and Christianity on the "grounds" that those two religions were corrupted, that they were originally Islamic, and that Islam is older and more important than both.

How arrogant, offensive, and self-serving is that?!
Not to mention we have extant Jewish and Christian texts far, far OLDER than Islam that show NOTHING was "corrupted!"

I admire your mind and desire for academic study of the earliest Islamic texts, but I think that would be a dead-end.

Firstly, the texts you'd need are not available for study. Secondly, there are no extant texts from the period when Mohammad lived -- the earliest (I believe) being 8th century, and they don't allow anyone access. Thirdly, the only thing you'd likely discover is what you already know: that the Koran (Qur'an) is a jumbled mess and mix of Judaism, Christianity and pagan Arabian gobbledygook.

Perhaps I'm wrong; perhaps a long-term, detailed study of the earliest texts (8th c) would reveal something never before known or understood. And if that discovery were to be made by a Muslim scholar, all the better!

However, if such a discovery by a Muslim were to mean great changes in the Islamic ideology were indicated, no one would ever learn of that discovery.

You could take that to your nearest Shariah-compliant bank.

Think of it as like some bright young Brownshirt discovering in the handwritten book outline for Mein Kampf that Hitler really loved the Jews and wanted to honor, instead of annihilate, them.

He'd go "far" in the Nazi State, would he not? Yep. Far to the bottom of a deep Alpine Loch!

But I seriously doubt discoveries are even there to be made in the old Islamic scribblings (though I'd be all for it if a serious effort were to be made).

In the end: it walks like a fraud, talks like an ignorant fraud, and acts like an ignorant fraud that's too ignorant to realize it's all just a fraud.

That's what I believe Islam to be. Nothing more, nothing less.

"Is Islam going to dominate the world or impose Sharia in America - have you gone mad."
--------------
Well, that's what Obama and Imam Rauf would have us all believe.

It's okay, doubting Aquigenus. You can sit back and poo-pooh what's happening in America's best "window to our own future," Europe, with "only" 5-20% Muslim population saturation (more in some, less in others). They're really starting to feel what's happening as a result of open-door Muslim immigration and high Muslim birth rates there. Add that to the large number who fail to assimilate into the various European countries, you got a perfect model for what I believe is actually Muslim colonization of Europe. And, it's not like many Muslims don't brag that it's exactly what they're doing.

In fifty years, at this rate, many areas of Europe will easily be 50% Muslim.

But I'm sure nothing will "change" there as a result, just as I'm sure that the same thing can't, and won't, ever happen in America.

You're wrong again. For the most part, America's laws are in compliance with the Ten Commandments, for instance laws passed against murder and stealing. Many other laws, while not supportive of a particular commandment, don't contradict the commandments either. Moreover, the founding of America was infused with the Judeo-Christian ethical code. The Founding Fathers were deeply aware of this even though many of them were not conventionally religious. As an aside, there is no true Golden Rule in Islam. Muslims are to aid other Muslims but not all people equally. The umma' and all that nonsense, you know.

Look, Islam is a prescription for the closing of the mind and for dividing the world into us and them. I'm not talking about any next world. I'm talking about this one and Islam is easily the most intolerant of any major faith. Get back to me about Islamic tolerance when churches and synagogues arise in Saudi Arabia and Christian missionaries won't have to fear for their lives when trying to convert Muslims to Christianity.

Islam is a one-way street, which is to say it is a giant hypocrite. Besides, I try never to forget that the person whom Muslims call the last and greatest of the prophets, blah, blah, blah was not only psychopathic but also a pedophile. Any middle-age man (Mohammed) who beds a nine-year old girl (Aisha) is by this fact alone disqualified in the minds of sensible and knowledgeable people from ever being admired, let alone the Model Man and all that rot. There's no getting away from it. Mohammed was a pedophile and more and more non-Muslims are finding out about this with each passing year. Some Model Man. The guy was brutal, a pervert and a fraud.

I don't think your really getting the big picture here, Russia went broke fighting in Afghanistan, so will you guys. Watch the Hilary clip, I'm not lying to you. Muslims are not a race either so they can't multiply by birth rates, whoever gave you the figures on that is high. Not every child of Muslim parents takes Islam seriously especially in the West, I should know my girlfriend is from Pakistan and I'm white and not Muslim. Also all my friends that are from Iran or Iraq, Afghanistan, their not Muslim either.

I hate to be the one to break it to you but this website is a bit of a conspiracy website like Loose Change or Planet Nibiru, only difference is the theme is Apocalypse by Muslim.

"#4. No one but a Muslim who believes like good Muslims believe have any business analyzing Islamic texts. Non-Muslim scholars who have spent their entire lives passionately studying Islam are completely unqualified to speak, or write, or anything, about it."

No, but someone who repeatedly and unashamedly calls Muslims "Mahoundians" has no business analyzing Islamic texts.

I notice when you want to be taken seriosuly you drop using the slurs. Why is that?

Better to overestimate the enemy rather than underestimate him. Besides, there's that phenomenon known as Sharia creep. Moreover, malevolent ideologies like fascism, Marxism and Islam are best combatted early on as the 1930s so well illustrates.

I think most posters here at JW have got things down pretty well. They're not paranoid and neither are they complacent. You're entitled to your opinion of course, but I'm entitled to disagree with it, which I do, including your snarky comments about others.

Fighting Fascism in World War 2 drained the majority of the US oil supply, the president made a deal with the King of Saudi Arabia to drill for oil, look how that worked out. It's a chaotic theory of Pandoras box, it's best to work on peace and improve Foreign Policies than go further down the rabbit hole.

Fighting Russia solved nothing either, their almost back to normal. We have to learn to get along or we will get nowhere together.

Hey Yusef, tell these guys your not a terrorist. I highly doubt too many Terrorists are commenting on Jihad Watch, it's more likely their just defending their religion peacefully through the Internet than practicing Stealth Jihad.

"I hate to be the one to break it to you but this website is a bit of a conspiracy website like Loose Change or Planet Nibiru, only difference is the theme is Apocalypse by Muslim."

this is unfair to most of the people on this site, if you agree with them or not. I don't want your help here.

Yeah that's fair man, I apologize, sorry to be a bother.

No, but someone who repeatedly and unashamedly calls Muslims "Mahoundians" has no business analyzing Islamic texts.

That's your opinion Mahoundian and you are entitled to it...Mahound is an alternate spelling of Mohammad...A Mahoundian is one who worships Mahound even if they deny it...If you have an objection to the name Mahound, you are an Islamophobe...And don't try and tell me what my business is...I don't take direction from Mahoundians...

I can clearly see that this is the wrong site for me, Liberal peaceful Canadians not welcome.

But an answer to your questions, yes I've read the Quran, the Hadiths and this will blow your mind, my girlfriend still considers herself Muslim. But as we know people aren't books, I can't read a bible and say that guy was really like the bible. Christianity is the number one religion in American prisons, these people would have been better off eating the bible than reading it, they would have digested more. Everybody is different and interprets things in their own way.

Also on a related note I've been to Egypt, lovely people there, however no walking Qurans. I see a couple JFK quotes on here which I find strange since he was a Liberal, but here's another.

We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.

So how do we address the Islamic jihad problem? so what is the right thing to do according to you? Stand back and watch the persecution of the Coptic Christians and other minorities? What would be your "liberal" reaction to the hanging of gays and stoning of women in Iran and other Islamic states? It stands to reason that if these people are allowed to immigrate in large numbers, the same things would happen in the West. Homophobia is widespread among Muslims in the UK. So is honor killings, support for jihadi elements, and hate spouting Mullhas etc. What is your response to these trends?

I notice no one refuted my points regarding the building chruches in Muslim-majority countries. They simpy made half-assed insults.

nuff' said

Evil Taqiyya Artist: Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi indeed says it's fine to build churches and even for Muslims to take part in their construction. It's not clear to me from his online discourse however, whether Sheikh Qaradawi's teaching/interpretation is put into practice.

Could you also provide us with some real life examples of peaceful and respectful co existence of minority religions such as Christians, Jews, Bahai's Ahmadiyyas, etc., with equal rights, in the Muslim majority states at present?

You really can't be as naive as you come across---or are you? We had no choice but to fight Hitler and no choice but to take on Marxism and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Try, for instance, telling Czechs and Poles we shouldn't have fought the Cold War. Ill consequences from the fight du jour often happen but you don't make policy when fighting tyranny in the present based on what MIGHT occur thirty years later. Get with it.

Oh, by the way, JFK was no liberal. He proposed the largest tax cuts in American history up to his time. The year in which he spent the least on defense as a percentage of the federal budget is still more than the year in which Ronald Reagan spent the most. He told Martin Luther King that this was not the right time for civil rights initiatives because of all the problems he had with the Russians (King understandably replied that no time was the right time) and gave the OK to his brother, Robert, who was his Attorney General, to secretly tap King's telephones----that's how the Kennedys found out about King's mistresses, among other juicy information. The idea that Kennedy was a liberal is rubbish. He was a conservative Democrat, a pretty scarce commodity anymore. Your revisionist history is way off.

I notice when you want to be taken seriosuly you drop using the slurs. Why is that?
--------------
Not true, and I believe that can be borne out in my posts over time. I use all the (historical) forms of Moslem, Muslim, Mahoundian, Mahometan, etc. interchangably. Serious or not.

If you think for one second that educated people "won't notice" all the evil crap Moslems do just because someone referred to the perpetrators as "Mahoundians," you have another think coming.

The following did not happen:

"Oh that's horrible, that mean Winston Churchill referred to those Nazis as Huns, we should not take Churchill seriously and we should pity the poor Nazis now!"

"I do not believe in a superstate." This quote alone disallows JFK from being considered a modern liberal. JFK was a Jeffersonian liberal, which I am, which is to say that he and I are beholden to Ronald Reagan conservatism, which is almost identical to Jeffersonian liberalism, a liberalism that saw self-reliance and freedom, not a nanny state, as the real source of greatness. As Jefferson observed, most bad government results from too much government. Old-fashion liberalism and modern liberalism are two very different things, you know. JFK did not belong to the latter (his brother Teddy did though) but rather the former.

The bigger the government the smaller the people. Modern liberals don't get this. Oh, modern liberals are also enamored of intellectuals and JFK most definitely was not. He said that he had "rarely met an intellectual with both feet on the ground." As for JFK's caring about things like jobs, schools, civil rights and people's health, do you really think conservatives don't care about these things? Conservatives want achievement in these areas but by different routes than do modern liberals (e.g., get rid of the damn Department of Education which has never accomplished a single thing and let the fifty laboratories which are America's states deal with education; after all, public education was much better in America fifty years ago than it is now). One very common trait of modern liberals, and you're exhibiting it, is the inability to distinguish between conservative and reactionary thought. And don't forget JFK was a hawk where fighting Communism and other tyrannies were concerned. Remember what I pointed out to you about his defense budgets (and tax cuts too).

JFK a liberal? Yes, a Jeffersonian liberal. A modern liberal no way.

Mr. Taqiyya, where are you really from ? and what do you REALLY know about building a church in what-so-called Islamic countries ? it's really shame to you to talk about this specific subject, as most of churches built there recently are to whiten the face of Islamic countries, and here's some information to you:

1- No churches were built in Egypt since the islamic invasion, and Christians were not allowed to ring the bells nor to put crosses on Churches until an English military campaign forced the Muslim governor to allow some worship freedom to the Copts.

2- Building new churches in Egypt or fixing old one (even fixing a broken pipe in a toilet) need a presidential permission, which takes about 5-10 years(and sometimes more) to have it, even if we could have it, we should face the Muslim riots may arise totally alone without protection.

3- many people in Egypt have to walk 3-7 KM in rural areas and roads or even take a trip to a nearby city/village to reach the nearest church, as they are not allowed to build a church in their city/village/neighbourhood, although they have the land and the enough fund to build it.

4- a recent incident, ilmenia's diocese was able to have a church building permission after long long years, but the governor didn't allow them to build it until they forfeit an old small church in about 1.5 KM diameter from the new land, when the diocese refused as they own both land, and there's no reason to forfeit it to the government, the governor cancelled the building permission.

and there's many many more incidents like this, you can google them if you want...

Coptic, thank you for your input. We in Western countries often need to know how things look to people who are actually affected. All I can do is pray to see the day when God says, "Blessed he Egypt my people and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel mine inheritance" (Isaiah 19:25). I would quote Philippians 1:27-28 and Hebrews 12:6 (a quotation from the Proverbs), but it just seems a little too facile, since I now live in the USA and have enjoyed life in Taiwan, both countries where Christians enjoy great freedom.

But the plight of the Egyptian churches (I understand that even Saladin may have ruled an Egypt still more than 50% Christian) is one reason why many of us here are deeply bothered with the posture of much of the Islamic world since 9/11. Mohammed Badie's reaction, as reported above, is yet another reason why many of us have become very wary and suspicious of Islam and Muslims. Badie is by no means ashamed of hair-trigger responses and remarks which many of us would think injudicious, but seems to welcome them.

And, when Muslims seem to demand that even non-Muslims pay lip-service to the Qu'ran or refrain from criticizing it, is this not also a demand to sacrifice character, integrity, honesty, and even intellect itself?

This is off topic, but--

John F. Kennedy is known as much from the people who surrounded him as he is from his own writings and speeches. While I nod to your answer to Aquigenus, Wellington, I have come to a few demurrals about the JFK legacy.

For better or worse, JFK's acolytes and New Frontiersmen all worked for a highly expansive state. Johnson indeed carried their torch when he filled in after Kennedy's assassination and following his own election.

Further, the Kennedy era was one of great national hubris (and I give a slight nod to our northern neighbor Aquigenus that American hubris can be as bad as anyone else's). The JFK-ites went into office believing that Americans could do anything from building nations in Southeast Asia to ending poverty in South Asia and Africa; they went into retirement believing that Americans HAD DONE everything from teaching torture to the heirs of inquisitorial Spain in Latin America to teaching corruption to the heirs of a Confucian mandarinate in South Viet Nam.

Because of this hubris, which got turned on its head in Viet Nam, we Americans are stuck with a political and media elite that is self-destructive of our own country and ever too ready to impute every nasty word in the book to anyone who got blasted out of our MCPC complacency by 9/11. Of course, this cannot be the fault of JFK himself, but so many of his admirers did indeed do much to bring about the era of American national masochism (which is not quite dead, and which not even Reagan could undo, no matter how hard he tried).

And, reading the article posted and the comments from Coptic, who seems to be living or to have lived close to the unhappy facts of the case, make me feel very uncomfortable that the JFK cultists may well be the ones who manouver our whole civilization into the kind of dhimmitude that the Copts suffer.

Hello, Coptic (Egyptian Christian)

welcome to this forum! God bless you!

Thank you for replying to the creepy Mohammedan liar/ sand-thrower.

I keep my ears and eyes open, and if ever I see, in my home city in Australia, a rally on behalf of the Copts, I will be there.

Your poor, brave, persecuted people are in my prayers.

I just wish I could put you all on a magic carpet and whisk you here to Australia, and to other relatively-safe places in the non-Muslim majority world.

I think we could fit in about a million or so Copts here, without much difficulty, and the climate here would suit you, being nice and warm and (most of the time) dry. The Copts who are here already have settled in nicely and are flourishing: we have a Coptic Studies centre in one of our big universities, we have two monasteries, any number of Coptic churches, Coptic-run private schools (which are doing as well academically as the Anglican and Catholic and Jewish schools), and even ten years or more ago, when I frequented one of Australia's biggest and oldest universities, the Coptic Christian student group on campus was one of the liveliest...joyfully exercising their right to practise and share their faith in public in a country that truly has freedom of religion.

Hello, 'classicus'.

You identified yourself thus:

"I am a fairly conservative Anglican Christian, and as such, I'm in a very tiny group."

Moi aussi. (And I did classical languages, too, ages ago; can still manage Latin, but my Classical Greek has dust on it an inch thick, though I can understand New Testament Greek well enough to cross-check the original when I am reading the Gospels; can also read Italian, French and German).

I'm an Australian evangelical Anglican - though the kind of evangelical who knows her church history and whose two favourite theologians are Jacques Ellul and David Bentley Hart, Hart being Eastern Orthodox.

Do you know of Hart's work? Highly recommended - I think, being a classicist, you'd like him; he's read the Fathers, Gregory of Nyssa and suchlike. Read his 'The Beauty of the Infinite: the Aesthetics of Christian Truth". Difficult and complex, but in places he writes like an angel (the chapter 'The consolations of tragedy, the terrors of Easter' is the best part in the book, besides what he says about Bach, in a subsection called 'divine counterpoint'...). His other books are great, too: 'The Doors of the Sea', which is a meditation in response to the 2004 tsunami; 'Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies'; 'The Story of Christianity' (an intelligent whistle-stop tour of church history to date - of *all* branches of Christendom both eastern and western, and not at all forgetting groups such as the Ethiopian Church, the Mar Thoma Christians of India, and the Copts) and 'Provocations and Laments' (a collection of essays, book reviews, and so on).

Speaking of Anglicans - the most intelligent Anglicans today, on the subject of Islam, are three.

1. Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali, formerly Bishop of Rochester in the UK, but born in Pakistan to parents who apostasised from Islam. I've heard Bishop Michael speak on a number of occasions. Very cool, calm and collected.

2. Canon Dr Patrick Sookhdeo, also of the UK, who apostasised from Islam to Christianity when at uni, and became an inner-city missionary priest, and then wrote some excellent books about Jihad and about Islam's encroachments in the West - his books 'Global Jihad' and 'Faith, Power and Territory' are thoroughly researched and scholarly, well-written, and sit next to Spencer's on my bookshelf. He independently confirms every major point Spencer makes. He just brought out a book about Islam's apostasy law - 'Freedom to Believe'. He's founded the 'Barnabas Fund' charity to support and lobby on behalf of persecuted Christians - mostly those in the Islamic world, but also in places like North Korea.

3. Rev Dr Mark Durie, an Australian Anglican linguist, scholar (of some standing) and parish priest, author of 'Revelation? Do We Worship the Same God? Jesus, Holy Spirit, God in Christianity and Islam' and 'The Third Choice: Islam, Dhimmitude and Freedom'. I've read the first; have yet to read the second; both good; recommended! Traeh here in this forum has read 'The Third Choice' and has been praising it highly.

Hello, 'classicus'.

Don't know whether you'll revisit this thread, but - I thought I'd reply anyway.

You said - "I am a fairly conservative Anglican Christian, and as such, I'm in a very tiny group..".

Moi aussi. I'm an Australian, evangelical Anglican - but well aware of wider church history, my two favourite theologians being Jacques Ellul (ever read his work? 'The Humiliation of the Word'? 'The Meaning of the City'? 'Un Chretien Pour Israel'? 'Ce Dieu Injuste: Theologie Chretienne pour le Peuple d'Israel'? You read French, so you can - and should - read him in his own language) and English convert to Eastern Orthodoxy, the American, David Bentley Hart.

I think you'd like Hart if you're a classicist. Have you heard of him? Try his 'Beauty of the Infinite: The Aesthetics of Christian Truth' - it's difficult, and complex, but also quite wonderful in places - as in the section entitled 'divine counterpoint' where he goes off into a sort of riff on the music of Johann Sebastian Bach, and in another section entitled 'the consolations of tragedy, the terrors of Easter'. In places, he can write like an angel. He also wrote 'The Doors of the Sea', which is a powerfully moving response to the 2004 tsunami; and 'Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and its Fashionable Enemies' (read the chapter 'the face of the faceless'); and a brilliant whistle-stop tour of church history to the present day, 'The Story of Christianity' (which covers *all* branches of the church, not forgetting groups like the Ethiopian Christians, and the Copts, and the Mar Thoma Christians of India); and then 'Provocations and Laments' which is an anthology of Hart's essays, articles and book reviews, some of them most entertaining.

I learnt Latin and Greek in my own uni days; Latin I can still follow at a pinch, but the Greek has dust on it an inch thick, though I can understand koine Greek well enough to be able to cross-check the original wording if I'm reading the Gospels or the Epistles. And I can read French, Italian, and German fairly well.

As for Anglicans. There are three Anglicans today who are intelligently aware of the problems with Islam.

1. Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali, formerly Bishop of Rochester, in the UK. Born in Pakistan to Muslim parents who apostasised from Islam. He has gotten into hot water more than once for opposing recognition of 'family sharia' in the UK, and blowing the whistle about Muslim 'no-go for infidels' areas in the UK. I've met him and heard him speak, in visits he's made to Australia. Silk and steel. He's written books, but right now it's 10 pm and I can't give you the titles off the top of my head, too tired; just google his name and I'm sure you'll get the titles.

2. Canon Dr Patrick Sookhdeo, founder of 'The Barnabas Fund' (an Anglican charity devoted to lobbying on behalf of, and giving practical and moral support to, persecuted Christians - primarily those in Islamic lands, but also those in places such as North Korea). Canon Sookhdeo was once a Muslim; he apostasised to Christianity in the 1960s, while a young uni student, and ended up as an Anglican missionary priest in tough inner city suburbs of the UK. He's written three excellent, scholarly books, all of which essentially agree with the points that Spencer makes: 'Global Jihad', 'Faith, Power and Territory' and 'Freedom to Believe: Challenging Islam's Apostasy Law'.

3. Australian Anglican priest and scholar, Rev Dr Mark Durie. He studied Acehnese language and literature in the early 1990s, which is where he first encountered the concept of Jihad and the Quranic texts that teach it. He's written two very good books - 1/ 'Revelation? Do We Worship the Same God? Jesus, Holy Spirit, God in Christianity and Islam' and 2/ 'The Third Choice: Islam, Dhimmitude, or Freedom'. I've read the first; 'Traeh', a regular commenter here, has read the second and highly recommends it. It would be a good book to read in order to make sense of reports such as the one we're currently discussing, about Pope Shenouda of the Copts.

I commend to you Nazir-Ali, Sookhdeo and Durie if you haven't yet read them.

There are some interesting books in French, on the subject of Islam. I can't rattle off all the titles at the moment - as I said, I'm feeling tired, and really need to head off to bed - I might come back to this thread and throw in three or four authors and titles.

But there's a Lebanese Christian writer, Antoine Fattal, whose master work is a thing called 'Le Statut legal du non-musulmanes en pays d'Islam' - it's still in print; you get it from Lebanon; it's never been translated into English. Might be worth your while seeing if it's in any University library within your reach. That way you get to a. find out more about Islam and what it does to non-Muslims within its sway and b. practise your French at the same time.