| FrontPageMag.com | Articles By Robert Spencer | Articles By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Robert Spencer Bio |  |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
You can find a pdf of the letter from the Muslim scholars here. My immediate impression is that while saying it wants to build on common ground, the letter (amid copious Qur'an quotes) never mentions Qur'an 5:17, which says that those who believe in the divinity of Christ are unbelievers, or 4:171, which says that Jesus was not crucified, or 9:30, which says that those who believe that Jesus is the Son of God are accursed, or 9:29, which mandates warfare against and the subjugation of Jews and Christians. It would seem to me that verses like these would need to be addressed in some way, even if only to give them some benign interpretation, if there is to be any true and honest dialogue.
"Pope told 'survival of world' at stake if Muslims and Christians do not make peace," by Ruth Gledhill for The Times (thanks to all who sent this in):
The "survival of the world" is at stake if Muslims and Christians do not make peace with each other, leaders of the Muslim world will warn the Pope and other Christian leaders today.In an unprecedented open letter signed by 138 leading scholars from every sect of Islam, the Muslims plead with Christian leaders "to come together with us on the common essentials of our two religions" and spell out the similarities between passages of the Bible and the Koran.
The scholars state: "As Muslims, we say to Christians that we are not against them and that Islam is not against them - so long as they do not wage war against Muslims on account of their religion, oppress them and drive them out of their homes."
That's from Qur'an 60:8.
The phrasing has echoes of the New Testament passage: "He that is not with me is against me" - a passage used by President George Bush when addressing a joint session of Congress nine days after 9/11.The Muslims call instead for the emphasis to be on the shared characteristics of world's two largest faiths.
The letter, addressed to Pope Benedict XVI, to the Orthodox Church's Patriarch of Constantinople, Bartholomew 1 and all the other Orthodox Patriarchs and to the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams and the leaders of all other Protestant churches worldwide, will be rolled out around the world this morning in a series of press conferences beginning in Jordan. It is supported by the Bishop of London, the Right Rev Richard Chartres.
It is expected to be followed by a joint conference between Muslim and Christian world leaders at on "neutral" ground, such as at a university in America.
"Finding common ground between Muslims and Christians is not simply a matter for polite ecumenical dialogue between selected religious leaders," the Muslim scholars say, noting that Christians and Muslims make up over a third and a fifth of humanity respectively.
"Together they make up more than 55 per cent of the population, making the relationship between these two religious communities the most important factor in contributing to meaningful peace around the world. If Muslims and Christians are not at peace, the world cannot be at peace."
The Muslims even quote passages verbatim from the Bible, extremely rare in a publication of this kind and at this level and an indication of their resolve to bring the two faiths together and end the present tensions between them.
The letter continues: "With the terrible weaponry of the modern world; with Muslims and Christians intertwined everywhere as never before, no side can unilaterally win a conflict between more than half of the world's inhabitants. Thus our common future is at stake. The very survival of the world itself is perhaps at stake."
It says: "And to those who nevertheless relish conflict and destruction for their own sake or reckon that ultimately they stand to gain through them, we say that our very eternal souls are all also at stake if we fail to sincerely make every effort to make peace and come together in harmony."
Concluding with a quote from the Koran, the scholars say: "So let our differences not cause hatred and strife between us. Let us vie with each other only in righteousness and good works."
Terrific. But this can only truly proceed with full openness and honesty on both sides.
The letter is being sent out today by the Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought in Amman, Jordan.[...]
The first reaction to the letter, from the Bishop of Rochester, Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, a leading Anglican expert on Islam, appeared to be critical.
Dr Nazir-Ali, who was born in Pakistan, welcomed the Muslim scholars' deisire for a dialogue, but said that the appeal was based on the Muslim belief in the oneness of God.
"What I would say to that is that Christians uphold belief in one God vigorously but our understanding of the oneness of God is not the Muslim understanding," he told The Times. "We believe in God as source from whom everything is brought into being. Jesus is God's word and presence for us but is also human."
He added: "One partner cannot dictate the terms on which dialogue must be conducted. This document seems to be on the verge of doing that."...
Yes.
Posted by Robert at October 11, 2007 11:19 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
Why should the West have to do anything ?
Why should the West want to do anything ?
The a-holes are in islam, the evil is in islam - let them expunge it and then come and talk to us.
Until then it is a useless exercise and more bullcrap.
Until then, because they are programmed to kill us, death, whereever appropriate, to jihadis.
Posted by: dgene![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at October 11, 2007 11:41 AM
Seems they need to make peace with themselves before they can make peace with everyone else.
Posted by: Stinkyinfidel at October 11, 2007 11:45 AM
Make peace or else. I pick else.
Posted by: champ at October 11, 2007 11:54 AM
Orthodox Church's Patriarch of Constantinople,
now this for me I have a hard time with?
http://www.adnkronos.com/IGN/Altro/?id=1.0.1115208130
The history and charm of Saint Sophia of Istanbul in Rimini
Rimini - Haghia Sophia, The Holy Wisdom of God, or Saint Sophia: these are two names for one building which was first a patriarchal basilica in ancient Constantinople, later a mosque during the Ottoman period and then a National Museum.
Then Turkey threatens the US over their history.
After all American Goverment said sorry for slavory so why can't Turkey admit what they did?
Hell even the Greams admitted what they did in WW2 and have a good relation with Isreal is it only the Jews and Christians who can forgive another?
REMEMBER
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Constantinople
Fall of Constantinople
Yes history does matter
at October 11, 2007 11:56 AM
"Seems they need to make peace with themselves before they can make peace with everyone else."
Good one! How true.
Posted by: champ at October 11, 2007 11:57 AM
, oppress them and drive them out of their homes."
The problem is that everything non-muslims do can be called oppression. 'Not converting' is oppression.
at October 11, 2007 12:03 PM
Once again we see an attempt to make the present problems the responsibility of both "sides". The fact is that the terrorism and conflict falls squarely at the feet of Islam, NOT at the feet of Christians. Islam needs to change. They will never admit that, so they continue to try and convince us that they are the victims, as usual. This is just another form of Taqiya. FYI I am not a Christian, in fact I follow no religion, so I am in a position to be absolutely impartial. They forget that Christianity is not practiced with the same blind fanaticism as Islam. It is also worth noting that according to mohammed there can be no peace, that any peace treaty is only valid until islam is strong enough to wipe out all opposition. It's the religious equivalent of a person saying they give up in a fight only to stab their opponent when his back is turned. I wish it were not so, but it is. I constantly look to find this "religion of peace" they talk about, but actions speak louder than words, and the actions seem to me to say cult, not religion.
Posted by: DaveMate at October 11, 2007 12:04 PM
at October 11, 2007 12:05 PM
Messed up my last post, I'm new here...
But to me the numbers don't lie
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index_files/TROP.jpg
Posted by: Stinkyinfidel at October 11, 2007 12:07 PM
Well, Dr. Nazir-Ali's comments will likely be construed as "causing oppression", don't you think?
Also, what the letter accuses Christians of doing, "wage war against Muslims on account of their religion, oppress them and drive them out of their homes" is exactly what is happening to Christian and non-muslims all over the world.
I hope that that point is made by someone in the response to the letter. The passage from Matthew 7:1-5 comes to mind. Jesus said during the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 7:1-5)
1 Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. 3 "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.
Finally, if the Christian leaders say, Thanks, but no thanks" is that sufficient for the moslem leadership to say that the "truce" is called off?
Posted by: eve_anne_gelical at October 11, 2007 12:11 PM
Maybe the letter is not everything you want to begin with, but it seems folly to reject it out of hand without a thoughtful and thought provoking response. If this is an opportunty to marginalize the most radical Islamists, then it is extremely important and valuable. If this is a potential step towards dialogue and reform, then let's try to walk down that pathway, albiet with open eyes. Remember, Rome was not built in a day and the Reformation did not happen overnight. If it is only a political stunt, then outright rejection wold not seem a wise PR move. If Muslim leaders are ready to consider "live and let live" they should be embraced and encouraged.
Posted by: Sashland at October 11, 2007 12:13 PM
Blast at Sufi shrine
Inner spiritual struggle gone wrong
Posted by: anti islamocommunist at October 11, 2007 12:17 PM
This is a sign of Muslim worry, so it is a good sign. The preposterousness of their demand -- that the behavior of Muslims, all over the world, be ignored (note that there is nothing in the statement to explain Muslim attacks on Buddhists in southern Thailand, or on Hindus, whether those HIndus are in Pakistan or Bangladesh, or in India itself), and that the only passages in the Muslim texts - or rather, only in the Qur'an, for the Hadith are not likely to be brought to the attention of the world's Christians -- that should be examined are those passages that are not those that underlie the Muslim view that the main division of humanity is between Believer and Infidel, and that it is a duty of all Muslims, a collective duty at times, and at other times an individual duty, to conduct Jihad so as to remove all obstacles to the spread, and dominance, of Islam. That these "scholars" of Islam recognize that too many Christians, and too many other non-Muslims for that matter, are beginning to see the light, as they not only find out what is in Qur'an and Hadith and Sira, but as they make sense - despite the idiocy of Tarbaby Iraq, that merely gets i nthe way -- but also relate the doctrine to the practice of Islam, over the past 1350 years, from Spain to East Asia, and today, with each Western newspaper beginning to look as if it will have to carry a special section, marked "Jihad News."
Posted by: Hugh at October 11, 2007 12:23 PM
I have some bad news: I am fully at war with Islam in my own mind.
I will not change my mind on that matter until Islam leaves the shores of the United States of America.
Every single day my readers bring me more evidence of outrageous dhimmitude here in the USA that seems to be growing by leaps and bounds. Every day I dig up more evidence on my own.
I will not bend knee to Islam, not for the President of the United States, Congress or anyone else.
They want a war? They got one.
Posted by: Foehammer at October 11, 2007 12:23 PM
*Muslims to Indians: make peace with us, or the survival of the world is at stake*
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/018436.php#c460909
D'oh, anti islamocommunist, guess those letters weren't shipped out in time.
Posted by: Stinkyinfidel at October 11, 2007 12:27 PM
Seems to me like an invitation to Islam and if Christians do not accept it then the future of the World is at stake, I see it as an invitation to Islam or else message, dressed up as something else.
Like many I wish this was sincere, but I just can not see it as anything else but a accept Islam or else, it seems the real shooting war is nearer than I thought?
Posted by: Daffersd at October 11, 2007 12:28 PM
"Muslims to Christians: make peace with us, or the survival of the world is at stake"Christians will have to roll over for that. Posted by: Zeno
at October 11, 2007 12:29 PM
The "be nice to your neighbors" bit is the most ironic aspect of this thing. After more than 1400 years of uninterrupted violent assault on their neighbors are we really expected to believe that the Muslim world is prepared to suddenly cease and desist? Provide us with evidence that the twin doctrines of jihad and dhimmitude are now finally and for all time abandoned by the Muslim world. Until then we will keep our cannons primed and pointed in their direction as our ancestors did for more than 14 centuries.
Posted by: SaracensAtTheGates at October 11, 2007 12:32 PM
Wait I thought this was a war against terror? So why are these Muslims gettin all in a huff?
*thinking*
Oh that's right...
Posted by: Stinkyinfidel at October 11, 2007 12:34 PM
I didn't read all the names of the signatories, but just scanning through them, I didn't see any Bin Ladens or Zawahiris, so I'm guessing Al Qaeda isn't joining in?
So the first response: Are they going to force Al Qaeda to comply with this peace agreement?
The second response: what about Israel? If you can have peace with one part of the "People of the book" you can have peace with all the "People of the book".
Third response: if we cease occupying muslim lands, who's going to pump the oil? Then again, are they willing to forgo the kabillions in foreign aide in exchange for our withdrawal from their lands and peace? I didn't think so.
Posted by: walterc
at October 11, 2007 12:36 PM
It strikes me that if islam was still in the state it was before they struck oil, and there weren't any muslims living in the West the conversation would be quite different.
"make peace with us, or the survival of the world is at stake"
"Oh really? Nice penguin suit. P### off"
at October 11, 2007 12:39 PM
Muslims engage in violence at the slightest provocation. Just look at ancient and recent history. It was only after 300-400 years of Islamic abuse that Christians engaged in the Crusades (I prefer the term Reconquest).
We must be very careful when Muslims talk of peace, since for them it means capitulation to their supremacy. Theologically Islam is incompatible with Christianity on many levels; the Holy Trinity, the divinity of Jesus, the forgiveness of the sins of repentant believers, and most importantly to humanity as a whole, the equality of dignity and love before the creator. While all groups will tend towards valuing their members over others, Islam is the only world religion where this is entrenched in the Koran and Hadith. While all religions have examples of failures in this regard, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Sihkism, and most other religions (with perhaps the Hinduism being the exception although admittedly I don't know much about that religion) consider the value of a non-believer as being equal with the believer. Jewish and Christian thought goes deeper on this level, inthat, the stranger is given extra protection and Jesus tells Christians to even "love the enemy".
Islam is a profound theological failure and far from the truth. Christianity can not make peace with Islam since Islam teaches profound lies about God, the story of God's salvation history with the Jews as God's people and the coming of Jesus, the fulfillment of Israel.
No thank you Islam, I choose the "or else" with full confident that when the truth Jesus comes, the world of Islam will come to an end. I suspect however that it will come to an end much sooner than these scholars assume. It is quite possible that a multilateral Crusade against Islam is only a couple hundred years away. With modern media, the lies of Islamic tolerance and non-violence will soon become a joke (if they are not already) and the world's religions along with secularist will move against the violent totalizing narrative which is Islam. Islam is an evil religion to which Muslims are enslaved. If it was the truth they would not need to threaten with death the hundreds of millions of people who want to leave the religion in Muslim lands.
I want the Truth, not a false peace with a false supremacist religion. These scholars know this, and this document is only a pretext for war. They can then claim the high ground.
Posted by: James Martel at October 11, 2007 12:43 PM
In their minds this is a plea. In my mind, this is a threat. In any event, peace is a good idea and the Islamaniacs can take the first step by stopping the flow of their people to the lands of infidels in order to cause mayhem. We'd be more than happy to leave them in peace if they stay where they belong-the ummah.
Too bad they won't take that first step because the Koran calls for only one kind of peace-the one where the whole world submits to its god.
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at October 11, 2007 12:43 PM
More taquiyah, more BS. This is it folks, the invitation by islam to all of us to join them in the great caliphate, to become one with the muslim world. Clever of them, isn't it? If we don't accept their invitation, then once again the consequences will be all our fault!
First, the pen. Then, the sword.
Posted by: ImNoDhimmi at October 11, 2007 12:44 PM
"Make peace." The "peace" of Islam?
Posted by: Josephine at October 11, 2007 12:45 PM
Foehammer, I'm totally with you.
Average Americans and Europeans need to get themselves a magic Islamic decoder ring. Only then will they understand that the Muslim phrase "Make peace with us" really means to submit to the enslavement of dhimmitude. Perhaps "Make peace with us" is really an incantation that puts a curse on the infidels that results in dhimmitude, loss of life and property, slavery, poverty, eradication of free speech and free thought and worse yet, being forced to actually BE a Muslim. Ugh! I can't think of anything more repulsive.
at October 11, 2007 12:47 PM
Is there a Arabic word the has the same meaning as chutzpah? In American slang we have "balls" "kahones" "gall" and a few more.
These clerics have some ________ to demand that we make peace with them.
"make peace with us" implies that we must surrender. Notice they did not word it like this or anything similar: "together we must make peace."
That is not s peace offering; it is a challenge.
Posted by: Pelayo at October 11, 2007 12:54 PM
Yea somehow I think the "peace be with yous" that I do in church just before breaking bread has a whole different meaning then "Muslims to Christians: make peace with us, or the survival of the world is at stake", maybe that's just me though.
Posted by: Stinkyinfidel at October 11, 2007 12:58 PM
What about the Jews, or the others who are not monotheist?
No peace for them I guess.
at October 11, 2007 1:00 PM
I think when somebody "demands" that you make peace with them, there might be a clue in there as to what that person is really trying to say. But if analyzing what the Muslims are saying interferes with our leisure activities, man, it's time to shoot the messenger and stick our heads back in the sand. If Americans would turn off their TV's for one week and actually take a look at what is going on they wouldn't be so quick to eviscerate those of us who keep bringing up the problem. After all, how much TV watching with the likes of the fare offered in the evenings here will be going on if Muslims ever institute Sharia law in America?
Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at October 11, 2007 1:04 PM
May I request that someone who is versed in the koran and "islamic" meanings of words like "oppression, peace and the oneness of God" please blog the letter to clarify the real meaning of the letter?
As Isabella mentions above, the average non-moslem is not aware that there are specific islamic meanings to some words that do not mean the same thing in the western vernacular.
Thanks,
Posted by: eve_anne_gelical at October 11, 2007 1:09 PM
I have read the whole thing now, its an invitation to Islam, its the same as the invitation made to the Emperor of Byzantium in the 600's.
"Thus in obedience to the Holy Qur’an, we as Muslims invite Christians to come
together with us on the basis of what is common to us, which is also what is most
essential to our faith and practice: the Two Commandments of love."
at October 11, 2007 1:10 PM
lol@ "nice penguin suit!!!"
What a crock this letter is. Telling us to make peace or else??? Er, how about THEY make peace or else? Huh? I'm SO tired of the pseudo victimization they project at all times. I know, I know, this is the way they're going about Islamifying the world and they're getting away with it. When in world are the namby pamby gov't's gonna realize that it's all a crock?
Methinks it will be too late when and if they do...
Posted by: gymgal at October 11, 2007 1:11 PM
If these Imam's believe the church holds anything more than a weak advisory roll in western politics they are woefully lacking in any understanding of western governments. They can appeal to the Pope untill it snows on Mecca and it will do no good.
It would appear they have less understanding of us than we do of them.
Posted by: ironman at October 11, 2007 1:14 PM
Make peace
( Submit to Islam )
or the Survival of the world
( the continued success of western civilization )
is at stake.
( this is a threat, because in reality, the light of truth is shining on all the dark nasty corners of the Islamic world and all of us who hold power over the ignorant and uninformed masses are going to lose that power if we don't do something, soooo pleeeease be quiet, don't act, roll over, or we will turn these barbarians against you, and you know what that means! )
at October 11, 2007 1:15 PM
The Common Word Between Us is a good beginning, though it is misdirected. It should be addressed at Muslims, not Christians.
The past 14 centuries of religiously inspired violence against the non-Muslim world cannot be erased by telling us to obey them. Nor can it work for them to dictate to us the terms of dialogue, i.e “Let this common ground be the basis of all future interfaith dialogue between us”. Nor may they thinly disguise Da’wa to us with:
“As Muslims, we say to Christians that we are not against them and that Islam is not against them – so long as they do not wage war against Muslims on account of their religion, oppress them and drive them out of their homes."The term “oppress them” is automatic if we reject their overtures to us, which means now we “drive them out of their homes” because they believe the whole world belongs to their Allah. This is not acceptable. Before we engage in a dialogue of peace with Islam (or else the threat of war in Darl-al-Harb), we must press them to clarify these points of “oppress them” and “drive them out of their homes”, if this dialogue is to have any meaning. In all truth, though this is an attempt for Islam to show a more humane side, it falls short.
Until Muslims can stand criticism and exact examination of their faith, both by their own scholars who disagree with the extremist Wahabi interpretations, and also stand criticisms from non-Muslims of aspects of their religion that are dangerous to us, and to world peace, then their overtures of peace are only a thinly disguised attempt at Da’wa. What they are really saying is accept our conditions of how Christianity is the same as Islam.. or else. That is false. The proof of this falsehood is that Christians are not attacking Muslims on religious grounds. They confuse political struggles with religion, but in Islam the two are inseparably intertwined, while in Christianity they are separate. Therein lies the difference, and why this overture to dialogue should be addressed at Islam, and not at the Christian world. The way it stands now, this invitation to dialogue is a thinly disguised Orwellian invitation to war, the "or else."
The impending doom they fear is justified, if they do not address these issues within their own faith first, because they are headed for self destruction. We can stand aside, if we choose, and not have to engage in their "internal" struggle. Unless they come to us for help, that they need our help, we do not have to respond.
at October 11, 2007 1:15 PM
Isn't it incumbent upon muslims to offer peace just prior to an attack???? Interesting timing of this unprecedented open letter if you read that than read this......
http://www.2.irna.ir/en/news/view/menu-236/0709199796134418.htm
notice the date we'll recieve the final response.
Posted by: billyoblog at October 11, 2007 1:16 PM
This is little more then the standard Convert, submit or die that the Muhammedan are required to send before attacking.
Posted by: senor doeboy at October 11, 2007 1:19 PM
That link should be.....
http://www2.irna.ir/en/news/view/menu-236/0709199796134418.htm
Posted by: billyoblog at October 11, 2007 1:20 PM
"Finding common ground between Muslims and Christians...."
Common ground? That is impossible to find between Jesus and Muhammad -- let alone the FOLLOWERS of Christianity and Islam. Compare Jesus to Muhammad:
http://www.christring.org/shortseries/jesusormuhammad.htm
Sure, finding common ground as human beings is possible, because we all need food, water and shelter to survive; but as far as finding common ground on our individual belief systems? No. There is no common ground; at least none that I can find.
Posted by: champ at October 11, 2007 1:21 PM
( Oh yes, and as a gesture of your desire for peace, get rid of the zionist state of Israel. )
Posted by: crusader rabbit at October 11, 2007 1:22 PM
Isabella you make a very good point, for the majority of the masses, they will finely sit up and take notice when their favorite tv shows are censored because it offends islam.
Posted by: gaelen at October 11, 2007 1:22 PM
If Islam wants peace with Christianity it can start afording Cristians the same rights Muslims have in the west. Christians in Islamic societies are to be free to preach, build Churches, convert people, and attend public Universities. Untill then there will never be peace.
Posted by: Ameriki at October 11, 2007 1:33 PM
I recall the story of the Pope vs. Mohammed (PBUH) one year ago, quoted below. It is not mentioned in this article but I believe that one imam called for the Pope to kneel and bow to the imams. They want the Pope to assume the position of a Dhimmi.
The "or else" sounds like a threat of nuclear holocaust, i.e., Armageddon. I wouldn't take it lightly. And what authority do they think the Pope has over the US President or EU?
--CT Yank
-----USA Today quote----------------------------
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2006-09-16-pope-muslims_x.htm
A top official of the Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt's largest Islamic political group, suggested the pope's apology was not enough. Mohamed Habib, deputy to leader Mohammed Mahdi Akef, called Benedict's comments Sunday "a step in the right direction." Habib added, "However, it does not represent a clear and explicit apology."
-----end quote----------------------------------
at October 11, 2007 1:35 PM
Thanks Gaelen. Case in point, I was fortunate enough to spend the past weekend at the beach with my niece who is 40 years old and her twelve year old son. We were gone for five days and talked about many things while driving down and back and whenever I brought something to my niece's attention about politics or Islam she would say to me, "Oh, I don't know anything about that. I'm not up on current events. I don't follow the news." But then she would tell me, in great detail, about several stupid TV shows she likes to watch, when they all come on and how you can tape them and use Tivo to basically numb yourself to any sort of reality at all. (Well, she didn't say that last part...that's how I interpreted it.) By the end of the weekend we weren't talking much because there was nothing to talk about.
I don't give a flying flip about the latest TV shows when my country is going to hell in a hand basket (or is that to the Ummah?) and my niece doesn't like to bother herself with sticky situations like having to defend the Constitution or imagining what her son's future will be like or standing up against evil right now so we don't have to stand up to even more down the road. Unfortunately, we didn't learn from WWII so we will probably have to go through another war to learn to appreciate what we've got.
The Muslims are right about one thing, the survival of the world IS at stake.
Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at October 11, 2007 1:35 PM
"Together they make up more than 55 per cent of the population, making the relationship between these two religious communities the most important factor in contributing to meaningful peace around the world. If Muslims and Christians are not at peace, the world cannot be at peace."
So what about the other 45%? Take Christians 1/3 and add that to the 45% that is everyone else and that's darn near 80% of people on Earth that are already at peace...so it's the remaining 20% that is Islam that is not at peace, they should make peace with us not the other way around...or else.
Posted by: Stinkyinfidel at October 11, 2007 1:37 PM
Now that Bush has convinced them that terrorism is failing, and "tarbaby Iraq" is looking more like Hugh's tarbaby than Bush's, and now that western science is on the verge of energy methods that will emasculate Islam's oil weapon, these scholars realize that demographic invasion is their best hope. For this they need to make nice so that the Womb of Islam has more chance than the wilted Sword of Islam.
Posted by: justask at October 11, 2007 1:40 PM
The phrasing has echoes of the New Testament passage: "He that is not with me is against me" -
posted above...
This was said by Jesus, as the Son of God. The followers of islam reject him in this context, so are not with him as far as this statement shows, or goes.
As far as peace, the City of N.Y. tomorrow will feature a special event that makes me feel as the color of the Empire State Building, as it will be on Friday night.
Keep watching ..
Posted by: Islofob IS-1 at October 11, 2007 1:43 PM
Sounds like a threat to me not a peace overture. And there can't really be any peace between us and them until they alter the Koran and various Hadiths so IMO its just a ruse.
And FWIW I chose "or else" rather than a false peace with a religion that wants infidels like me dead or a slave.
at October 11, 2007 1:47 PM
"As far as peace, the City of N.Y. tomorrow will feature a special event that makes me feel as the color of the Empire State Building, as it will be on Friday night.
Keep watching .. "
I read that, can't believe it. Tells me how warped some of the beliefs in our country really are. Why don't they have green spot lights where the Twin Towers stood while they are at it.
Posted by: Stinkyinfidel at October 11, 2007 1:48 PM
Forgive the length, but this is a story well worth reading, for inspiration:
The Otranto Martyrs of 1480 (Italy)
"...There is a prologue to this mass execution. In the early morning hours of July 29, 1480, from the walls of Otranto there could be seen on the horizon an approaching fleet composed of 90 galleys, 15 galleasses, and 48 galliots, with 18,000 soldiers on board. The armada was led by the pasha Ahmed, under the orders of Mohammed II, called Fatih, the Conqueror, the sultan who in 1451, at just 21 years of age, had become head of the Ottoman tribe, which had replaced the mosaic of Islamic emirates a century and a half earlier...
When the Ottomans disembarked, the city’s garrison numbered just 400 men at arms, so the captains of the guard quickly sent a missive asking for help to the king of Naples, Ferrante d’Aragona.
With the castle under siege and all the city’s inhabitants inside it, the pasha Ahmed, through a messenger, proposed a surrender with advantageous conditions: if they did not resist, the men and women would be set free and would not face any sort of punishment. The response came from one of the city’s leading citizens, Ladislao De Marco: if the assailants wanted Otranto, he let it be understood, they would have to take it by force.
It was intimated to the messenger that he should not come back, and when a second messenger arrived with the same proposal for a surrender, he was riddled with arrows. To remove any doubt, the captains took the keys to the city gates, mounted a tower, and in the sight of the people cast them into the sea. During the night, many of the soldiers of the guard lowered themselves over the city walls with ropes and fled. Only the inhabitants remained to defend Otranto...
What followed was a relentless siege: the Turkish bombardment rained down upon the city hundreds of huge stones (many of these can still be seen along the streets of the city’s historic center). After fourteen days, at dawn on August 12, the Ottomans focused their fire on one of the weakest points along the walls: they opened a breach and poured into the streets, massacring anyone in their path, and came to the cathedral, where many had taken refuge. They broke down the doors and flooded into the temple, where they found the archbishop, Stefano, who was there in his pontifical vestments and with the crucifix in his hand. To the order that he no longer speak the name of Christ, because from that moment Mohammed was in command, the archbishop responded by exhorting the assailants to conversion, and at this his head was cut off with a scimitar...
“About one hundred men were presented to the pasha, who had at his side a miserable priest named Giovanni from Calabria, an apostate from the faith. He employed his satanic eloquence for the goal of persuading the Christians that they should abandon Christ and embrace Mohammedanism, sure of the good graces of Ahmed, who would grant them their lives, possessions, and all the benefits they enjoyed in their homeland: otherwise they would all be massacred. Among those heroes was a man named Antonio Primaldo, a tailor, advanced in age but full of religion and fervor. In the name of all, he replied: ‘Would that all believed in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and were ready to die a thousand times for him'."
The first of the chroniclers, Giovanni Michele Laggetto, adds, in the “Historia della guerra di Otranto del 1480 [Story of the war of Otranto in 1480],” transcribed from an ancient manuscript and published in 1924:
“And turning to the Christians, Primaldo spoke these words: ‘My brothers, until today we have fought in defense of our homeland, to save our lives, and for our earthly governors; now it is time for us to fight to save our souls for our Lord. And since he died on the cross for us, it is fitting that we should die for him, remaining firm and constant in the faith, and with this earthly death we will earn eternal life and the glory of martyrdom.’ At these words, all began to shout with one voice and with great fervor that they wanted to die a thousand times, by any sort of death, rather than renounce Christ.”
Ahmed condemned all the eight hundred prisoners to death. The following morning, they were led with ropes tied around their necks and their hands bound behind their backs to the Hill of Minerva, a few hundred meters outside of the city. De Marco writes:
“All of them repeated their profession of the faith and the generous response they had given at first, so the tyrant commanded that the decapitation should proceed, and, before the others, the head of the elderly Primaldo should be cut off. Primaldo was hateful to him, because he never stopped acting as an apostle toward his fellows. And before placing his head upon the stone, he told his companions that he saw heaven opened and the comforting angels; that they should be strong in the faith and look to heaven, already open to receive them. He bowed his head and it was cut off, but his corpse stood back up on its feet, and despite the efforts of the butchers, it remained erect and unmoving, until all were decapitated. The marvelous and astonishing event would have been a lesson of salvation for those infidels, if they had not been rebels against the light that enlightens every man who lives in the world. Only one of the butchers, named Berlabei, believed courageously in the miracle and, declaring himself a Christian in a loud voice, was condemned to be impaled.”
...The sacrifice of the eight hundred men of Otranto was not important solely on the level of faith. The city’s two-week resistance permitted the army of the king of Naples to organize and to approach that area, blocking the eighteen thousand Ottomans from invading the entire region of Puglia...
What makes this extraordinary episode so significant, even for today’s European, is that in the history of Christianity there has never been a lack of witnesses to the faith and to civic values, nor has there been a lack of men who have courageously confronted extreme trials. But there has never been an episode of such vast collective proportions: an entire city that at first battles as it is able and survives for a number of days under siege, and then firmly rejects the proposal to abjure the faith. On the Hill of Minerva, apart from the elderly Antonio Primaldo, no other individual personality emerged, if it is true that the names of the other eight hundred martyrs are unknown: proof of the fact that it was not individual heroes, but rather an entire population that faced the trial.
All of this also took place because of the indifference of the political leaders of Europe at the time, in the face of the Ottoman menace.
Even if history never exactly repeats itself, it is nevertheless not arbitrary to gather analogies and comparisons from its developments: exactly one thousand years after 480, the year of the birth of Saint Benedict of Norcia – a humble monk to whose work Europe owes so much of its identity – other lowly men understood Europe better than their leaders did, men who were more ready to fight each other than to confront the common enemy.
When the inhabitants of Otranto found themselves facing the Ottoman scimitars, they did not find in the disinterest of their kings a reason to quit themselves; strong in the culture in which they had been raised, although many of them had never learned the alphabet, they were convinced that resisting and not abjuring the faith was the most natural choice. Try talking today with a Western soldier who has returned from a mission in Iraq or Afghanistan: what one hears most frequently is their amazement at the discussions and the endless disagreements over our presence in those regions. For these soldiers, it is natural that they should go to help those in need of support, and guarantee the security of reconstruction against terrorist attacks.
In Otranto in 1480, no one displayed rainbow pacifist flags, nor invoked international resolutions, nor asked for a meeting of the municipal council so that the zone might be declared as demilitarized; no one chained himself beneath the city walls to “construct peace.”
For two weeks, the fifteen thousand inhabitants of the city boiled oil and water, until they had none left, and poured it over the walls onto the assailants. And when the eight hundred adult men still alive were captured, they went willingly to meet the same fate that the Iraqis, Afghans, Americans, English, Italians, and others meet in Iraq and Afghanistan when they are kidnapped by terrorists. Eight hundred heads were cut off one after another, with no politically correct newsmen to censor the account. If today we have thorough knowledge of this extraordinary event, it is because those who described it were objective and rigorous.
Today Europe is under attack not – as in the preceding historical episode – by an institutionally organized Islamic phalanx, but by a patchwork of non-governmental organizations of ultra-fundamentalist Muslims. Keeping in mind this structural difference, it is not out of place to ask how much there is today in the West, in Europe, in Italy, of that “naturalness” that led an entire community to “defend the peace of their land” to the point of making the ultimate sacrifice.
The question is not out of place, if one considers that a truly decisive element in the struggle against terrorism is the solidity of the social body, or in any case of a large part of it, in the face of the threat and of its most bloodthirsty manifestations. The memory of Otranto does not merely emphasize that there are times when resistance is a duty, but even before this it reminds us of who we are and from what community we come..."
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/161401?&eng=y
Posted by: atheling at October 11, 2007 1:50 PM
This looks to be a dawa - a threat - preparation for all-out war, convert or die! I also saw no mention of peace with Jews. Hmmm...
Posted by: 1389 at October 11, 2007 2:02 PM
This looks to be a dawa - a threat - preparation for all-out war, convert or die! I also saw no mention of peace with Jews. Hmmm...
Posted by: 1389 at October 11, 2007 2:04 PM
Jesus said, "Blessed are the peace makers."
Muhammad heard, "Blessed are the peace breakers."
He's deaf and dumb.
Posted by: champ at October 11, 2007 2:05 PM
“In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful,
And peace and blessings be upon the Prophet Muhammad
A COMMON WORD BETWEEN US AND YOU”
‘common word’………..’common word’??
What, Almighty God?? Gee, excuse my prejudice but are we really ‘comparing apples to apples’ here when these kings of Muslim deceit try to convince us self-hating Westerners that we worship the same God? Do we really? The Christian God is the One, True God whereas this ‘allah’ equivalence thing is nothing more than a cheap, demonic contrivance – a trick. Isaiah 5:20 sums it up best when he says: ‘woe to those who call evil good and good evil’. I say let’s ‘wait to see the whites of their eyes’ and then send them all back to the hell they came from!
at October 11, 2007 2:27 PM
Maybe Muhammad heard.....
"Blessed are the peace FAKERS."
Posted by: champ at October 11, 2007 2:37 PM
Looking for love in all the right places:
the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams is a sure candidate to bend over. The Islamofascists sure know how to separate theuseful idots from those who are prepared to resist their attacks.
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at October 11, 2007 2:45 PM
Of course the survival of the world is at stake.
And it is the Muslims with their bloody "jihads" that are to blame for this horrendous situation. It is, after all, Islam that divides the world into the "House of al-lah" and the "House of War." And it is the Kuran that tells Muslims to fight the "unbelievers" until the last day. And it is the Muslims who can produce ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF TO VALIDATE ANY OF THEIR BELIEFS and CLAIMS yet continue mass slaughter of the human race on a daily basis because of their beliefs which instruct them to kill 'unbelievers'.
Look at the situation in Sudan and Darfur. Look at what goes on in Afghanistan. Look at what goes on in the Balkans or in Kashmir. Look at the war in Chechnya. Look at the ongoing jihad against Buddhists in southern Thailand. Look at Israel. Look at 9-11 and the Muslims' almost-universal enthrallment at the sight of Americans being murdered in thousands.
Muslims do NOT want peace. They want total control and they want to feed human beings to al-lah. Peace is iutterly rrelevant to Islamic doctrine.
Islam is a "religion" of warfare and violence and the only way the world will see peace again is to eliminate Islam--permanently.
After all, Muslims DO believe that "paradise is under the shade of the swords." That leaves precious little middle ground for anyone other than a Muslim to stand on.
Posted by: pythagoras at October 11, 2007 2:46 PM
Ah, this is just a last minute attempt to prevent the bombing of Iranian nuclear factories. Orchestrated by the Iranian president from the beginning to the end, I am sure. Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran!
Posted by: Charles Martel at October 11, 2007 2:52 PM
Slightly O/T
Drudge is reporting that Ramzi Yousef is claiming to have converted to christianity.....
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash6.htm
at October 11, 2007 3:10 PM
Charles Martel:
Ditto for every goddam Islamified nation on the planet! And sooner rather than later.
Human life means nothing to Muslims of course. Thus, human life is way too good for them. Those who don't value something like life don't deserve to have it.
Off with their heads.
Posted by: pythagoras at October 11, 2007 3:13 PM
gaelen
from DR
...Pelley also speaks with a corrections officer inside ADX-Florence, who tells him what she heard on 9/11 after terrorist prisoners saw the destruction on their televisions. "We had a lot of them jump up and down. ...scream and yell and clap and they were very excited," says Barbara Batulis, who heads the prison's staff union. She also characterizes the Muslim extremists as needy. "They want more than what they have coming," she says. "They want extra toilet paper...writing paper...extra envelopes and if you can't give them, they want to see a supervisor right then and there."...
Basically sums it all up right here I would say.
at October 11, 2007 3:17 PM
Christianity is not at war with Islam. Islam is at war with "Western Civilization" (includes ALL other religions and athiests) as well as warring between various Islamic sects.
The 138 Islamic "scholars" should send the letter to Al Qaida, Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, Syria, etc. if they want to achieve world peace.
Posted by: Xero G at October 11, 2007 3:18 PM
"Maybe the letter is not everything you want to begin with, but it seems folly to reject it out of hand without a thoughtful and thought provoking response. If this is an opportunty to marginalize the most radical Islamists, then it is extremely important and valuable. If this is a potential step towards dialogue and reform, then let's try to walk down that pathway, albiet with open eyes. Remember, Rome was not built in a day and the Reformation did not happen overnight. If it is only a political stunt, then outright rejection wold not seem a wise PR move. If Muslim leaders are ready to consider "live and let live" they should be embraced and encouraged." posted by "Sashland"
Sir,
At the moment there really are no conditions to take this taqiyya seriously. As Robert notes, they fail to take into account certain Quranic surahs which hinder their treatment of us as equals. Plus, in my humble opinion, there can be no fruitful dialogue unless they negate the doctrine of jihad against us kafirs. Implicit in your response above is the belief that the "radical Islamists" are heterodox to orthodox Islam, and this indicates that you are not familiar with the Qur'an, and you are not familiar with any of Robert's books. You need to read Bat Ye'or's "The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam: From Jihad to Dhimmitude." For more about jihad's history, you need to pick up the equally scholarly book "The Legacy of Jihad" by Andrew Bostom.
We are not the obstacles to reform, if that is possible, within Islam. And in reality, the thing that must be rescinded is the belief that every word in the Qur'an is the divine dictation of Allah to the Angel Gabriel to the mind of Muhammad. That hermeneutical principle is what, in the final analysis, makes Islam irreformable. And if you have read the Qur'an, you would know that huge swaths of it would have to be either deleted or radically reinterpreted, if you reject that hermeneutical principle they apply to their scriptures.
I see this letter as part of an overall strategy on the part of Islam, being put into place all over the West, to co-opt all of our institutions in order to marginalize this growing movement of greater knowledge about Islamic scripture, theology, and jihad history. They have already co-opted the highest realms of our governments and our academic institutions. Now, they are aiming to for our churches as well.
I do not see this letter as an opportunity for dialogue. I see it as part of their overall war against us, and thus I take it as one more indicator that we must not let our guard down and must keep hammering away at the truth.
at October 11, 2007 3:32 PM
While many here on this blog would agree to disagree with muslims, I am afraid that many churches, priests, preachers, temples, bishops and congregations will agree with the muslims.
While we do not see Jews or Christians going around killing, we do see Jews and Christians HOSTING meetings with Muslims to 'overcome the misunderstandings of Islam'.
Question. If it is the Muslims that are going around killing, but it is the Jews and Christians that are attending the 'misunderstanding meetings', shouldn't the meetings be cancelled and transferred to mandatory meetings for muslims?
I see muslims telling Jews and Christians to 'understand, tolerate, and accomidate' islam. And we are doing it. I do not see Muslims telling Muslims to do the same.
How could there be such discrepisies in Islam? We see the true for in the Middle East and we see the 'watered down' agenda form in the west.
The battle is not in Iraq or on the battle field, it is right here in our country, our churches, our newspapers, our schools, and our goverments.
The leaders of MANY churces and faiths have already removed the message of their faith and the truth, so it will be easy for many to mess with islam.
Many of you have disagreed on this subject, but I will proceed in the belief that I am right...There are many Faiths that are currently negotiating with Islam for a Unifying of Faiths. This will not happen over night, it will be slow played to us through the media, U.N. and our churches. Churches that will not participate will lose their I.R.S tax exempt status, will be censored or closed for 'Hate Speach', or will have to close because of frivilous lawsuits to silence them.
The war is not going to be won with F15's and special ops, it is being lost by negotiating away our rights, and passing laws against our rights and promoting muslims rights. Our places of goverment and the court benches are where the muslims are winning this war. Soon it will be your church.
Does your Faith right now have elders or leaders that are 'agreeing' with muslims, meeting with muslims, being empathetic with muslims, point it out and call it into light.
Why is the Christian Church in America silent?
Posted by: alaskan1000 at October 11, 2007 3:33 PM
Stinky
Personally I feel as the gentlemen who was interviewed does, he's playing a game and doing it very well if anybody actually does believe him. As for the behavior of the others incarcerated, would we really expect anything less???
Posted by: gaelen at October 11, 2007 3:33 PM
On which tenents are we supposed to agree? How about on verse 5:17 in the Koran, which says that those who believe in the divinity of Christ are unbelievers, or verse 4:171, which says that Jesus was not crucified, or verse 9:30, which says that those who believe that Jesus is the Son of God are accursed, or verse 9:29, which mandates warfare against and the subjugation of Jews and Christians.
What happens if I do not "agree" to those? Well, then, in that case, muslims have a right to kill me.
Hmmm...I'm not sure that I like my choices.
How about this: Hey Muslim, how about trying to kill me then? Please go ahead and make the first move so that I am legally protected when I put a bullet in your head!
Posted by: JasonTX1 at October 11, 2007 3:44 PM
Somehow I feel that "make peace with us" means "we want to divide Christians from Jews" so we can eliminate Israel (first) before we get down to the elimination of the Christians and everyone else, other than Moslems (who agree with our brand of Islam). Nice people! We just have to understand their thinking.
Posted by: kenprice at October 11, 2007 3:46 PM
Three big problems here with this conditional offer from the Muslim scholars:
First, the influence of the Pope or Christian clergy in secular western societies governmental, especially, military decisions.
Second, the specific definition of Christian "oppression" by the Muslim scholars.
Last, but certainly not least. Doesn't the US presence in Iraq as of today already imply that we are technically reneging on the conditions of this offer?
Posted by: awake at October 11, 2007 3:48 PM
XERO G...
Those 138 signers are not going to send this to anyone but their enemy. That is you and me.
At times of conflict with our National Security we look to respond to the 'State Goverment' that initiated that response. i.e. If we are attacked by a group that represents a country, we then declare war and attack that country (state) and hold them accountable.
Now remember that Muslim Countries are not ran by the 'state' but instead by the 'church'. The highest official in a muslim country is the 'religous one'. The 'state' cannot operate without authority of 'church'.
Western countries still have not grasped this.
So, instead of holding a 'state' accountable we should be holding a 'religion' accountable, Islam. Hezbollah, Hamas, Al-queda, etc, etc, are the 'church' and have been trained and armed by the 'state'.
Do you see muslims condemning any of the above groups? No, they praise them, host them, fund them. It is one of the highest honors of their religion and you recieve the best rewards in heaven.
We are at war with a religion. They know it, and they know that international laws restrict a 'state' from declaring war on a 'church'.
Posted by: alaskan1000 at October 11, 2007 3:50 PM
Funny they know, you know, I know, we know, we are at war with a religion but our own leaders don't.
Posted by: Stinkyinfidel at October 11, 2007 3:54 PM
Hmmm, in light of this:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/018441.php
the letter from Muslims make more sense. They are worried.
Posted by: atheling at October 11, 2007 4:06 PM
Reads so wonderfully, all the similarities in how we worship. Just brings tears to my eyes.
But, the God of love and grace revealed in the New Testament cannot be the same as Allah. Allah is hateful, despises Jews, Christians and other non-believers and sees non-Muslims as enemies who must be subjugated to Muslims.
These very similarities result in entirely different behaviours. One of compassion; the other of hatred, fear, and vengence.
This letter might have had value if the Muslim authors addressed the inherent bigotry and hatred within Islam. Then and only then could there be some dialogue that could avert global confrontation.
at October 11, 2007 4:06 PM
I hope the sponsors of JihadWatch will spend the time researching the previous statements and backgrounds of the authors of this letter. Are the authors really moderates? Or is there something more sinister behind this?
Posted by: Clay Marley at October 11, 2007 4:08 PM
This is all so irrelevant. It is an empty gesture, because, as the ONLY people on earth capable of subduing the violent gene of Islam, these clerics by not addressing that task are merely acting as the dull instrument of the terrorists. They are building toy ships in glass bottles.
The violent jihadists will not stop, ever, for any truly peaceful person anywhere on the earth, be they Christian, Jew, Muslim, or any other person of faith or non-faith.
Let's be clear. "Peaceful" people will not stop them.
Posted by: JohnAdams at October 11, 2007 4:09 PM
"Allah is NOT the God of the Bible"
"Muslims believe that there is no other God besides Allah and that he is the God of the universe. They claim that not only is he their God, but that he is the God of the Jews, the Christians and everyone else. When examining the profile of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and comparing it with Allah’s profile, there are a number of distinct differences between them that can only result in one conclusion: These profiles simply do not match! Allah is NOT the God of the Bible!"
Learn more:
http://www.kingmessiahproject.com/is_allah_not_God.html
at October 11, 2007 4:12 PM
Looks like a move to isolate israel , but it still leaves 3 billion people to kill.
Posted by: GrennBeck at October 11, 2007 4:14 PM
Sashland:
The presumption must be that the letter is an invitation to subject to Muslim hegemony, NOT a genuine peace offer, until proven otherwise. Why? Because the Islamist MO is to make such an offer before ttacking.
Posted by: MosheC at October 11, 2007 4:15 PM
To quote (Guns of) Will Sonnett (Walter Brennan) "This is not a threat, it's a promise".
Posted by: TheOmegaMan at October 11, 2007 4:29 PM
Note to Muslim scholars,
Have a little gnawing doubt about the availability of your 72 virgins?
The following illustrates the fallacy of spending the last 14 centuries reading, rereading, and rereading again the same book.
"With the terrible weaponry of the modern world; with Muslims and Christians intertwined everywhere as never before, no side can unilaterally win a conflict between more than half of the world’s inhabitants."
Guess again. No doubt, it would be terrible for both sides, but if you think it will equally terrible for both sides you're kidding yourself.
Check the Federation of American Scientists website for a little better idea of the relative arsenals arrayed against each other. And it's not just a warhead count; it's the whole of economic, scientific and industrial infrastructure. You are setting your civilization up for a major clock cleaning. In the West's worse case scenario, you might set the West back a several million people and decades of rebuilding. In Islam's worst case scenario, the West can… well, given Islam's illustrious history of intellectual achievement we keep hearing about, you should be able to do the math.
By the way, in case you think "Muslims and Christians intertwined everywhere as never before" will save you from an all out conflict, lookup the meaning of the Western colloquialism: "shit happens".
at October 11, 2007 4:32 PM
The Muslim point of view:
"Let's be reasonable. Do it my way."
Posted by: A_Nonny_Mouse at October 11, 2007 4:33 PM
Hugh posted: That these "scholars" of Islam recognize that too many Christians, and too many other non-Muslims for that matter, are beginning to see the light, as they not only find out what is in Qur'an and Hadith and Sira, but as they make sense.
This is borne out by the informed and uniformly hostile letters to the Times.
at October 11, 2007 4:43 PM
@ topic
This is nothing but a surrender demand/ultimatum by any other name...and they're not in the position they think they're in to be making this.
Only one way to respond to this garbage:
"NUTS!"
Posted by: jcom972 at October 11, 2007 4:49 PM
I could only read the first couple of pages of the "open letter". It's pretty artless in several respects. Just a few comments.
In the Holy Qur’an, God Most High enjoins Muslims to issue the following call to Christians (and Jews—the People of the Scripture): "Say: O People of the Scripture! Come to a common word between us and you: that we shall worship none but God, and that we shall ascribe no partner unto Him, and that none of us shall take others for lords beside God...."
The phrase "ascribe no partners to him" is very similar to language of the oneness and uniqueness of God in the Christian and Jewish tradition, as witnessed by numerous passages in, for example, Isaiah. On the surface, then, this appears indeed to be a "common word" as proposed in the preface, and something Christians could agree on.
However anyone who has read much of the Qur'an will see that this very phrase has specific meaning to a muslim: It is a rejection of the divinity of Christ, repeated several times in the Qur'an. To a muslim it is an unmistakable condemnation of the central doctrine of Christianity as heresy. To use this as the centerpiece of a document proposing a "common word" between the two faiths amounts to a challenge to abandon our own faith.
Perhaps this point is a bit subtle for those unfamiliar with the Qur'an: we too, as the Bishop of Rochester indicates, believe in "the oneness of God". It is not the words that are problematic for us -- it is the intention of those words as they appear contextually in the Qur'an that argues against harmony. The Qur'anic use of the phrase is belligerent, not concilliatiory. How, then, are we to respond without addressing that challenge?
I used to have ongoing debates with Mormons, and I am familiar with this tactic: first they declare in broad terms that "at the core our beliefs are the same". They list off statements of dogma and ask for agreement. See? We agree on this...and this...and this. Only later you learn (a) the words mean something very different to them -- "one God" means "one God FOR US (out of many)" and so on; and (b) all the time you are being asked to nod your head and show friendship you are regarded as a dirty, stinking apostate with repugnant beliefs; and (c) the words begin to change as you are called to account for the things you have agreed as "common ground", which slowly get morphed into very different assertions than they began with. Nowadays when I speak with Mormons, I go right to the chase: There's no point "agreeing" on words; that's not dialogue but denial of distinctives. Let's talk about where we differ and in the context of openness we may (or may not) find some common ground. Same principle should come into play with Islam-Christian dialogue.
...we say to Christians that we are not against them and that Islam is not against them—so long as they do not wage war against Muslims on account of their religion, oppress them and drive them out of their homes,...
This is coded language for "as long as you don't support Israel we'll not attack you, but if you continue to support them then our offer of peace is null and void". The phraseology is used everywhere in the Muslim world and should not be mistaken for anything else. This is an artless call to abandon Israel, to isolate them as a religion, and politically, from the West (as represented by Christianity)
I can understand why Jews might regard Christianity in somewhat the same light as Christians regard Islam: a pretender to having a common religious heritage. Nevertheless, from a Christian standpoint Judaism is the closest kindred faith, and this bond should not be severed on anyone's account, least of all not to bolster alliances against the Jews. I realise that "Israel" and "Judaism" are two distinct things, but they are inextricably entwined, and in no place more than in the minds of muslims. Christian dialogue with Islam must never be predicated upon distancing Christians as friends and allies to the Jewish faith and the state of Israel!
Finally, I find it remarkable (and perhaps a bit hopeful) that these "Islamic scholars" choose the dual themes of love of God and love of neighbor as the central basis for their call to dialogue.
The basis for this peace and understanding already exists. It is part of the very foundational principles of both faiths: love of the One God, and love of the neighbour. These principles are found over and over again in the sacred texts of Islam and Christianity.
As I'm sure they know, these themes lie at the core of christianity. But is it true that they are found "over and over again in the sacred texts of Islam"? I have three things to say about this.
1. As I have written here and elsewhere, the Qur'an is basically devoid of "Love" as a theme. There are NO "Love Passages" like the many famous ones found in the New Testament. In the English Qur'an I read from there are 77 uses of the word "love", including wordforms such as "lovely" and "lover". NONE of these are in passages that are about love; love is an incidental verb in a passage discussing something else. Breaking these 77 passages into broad categories, the most striking thing one finds is that the LARGEST category, consisting of about 18 passages, use the word in a phrase that goes "Allah does not love those who...". In other words, these are not love passages but HATE passages. The most famous passage of the new testament "For God so loved the world that he sent his only son..." (Jn 3:16) says, exactly, that God loves everyone---in direct contradiction to these Qur'anic passages.
2. While Allah's love in the Qur'an is conditional and restricted only to his "slaves" -- the muslims -- in the New Testament it is unconditional and offered freely to all. There is much to write about this. It is a fundamental incompatibility between the faiths, a clash of paradigms.
3. What is "love of neighbor" in the Qur'an? All that I can find there, and the quotation given from the Hadith, “None of you has faith until you love for your neighbour what you love for yourself.”, refers exclusively to love for fellow muslims. It is explicitly exclusive of "the other" -- those of competing religious traditions, particularly Christians and Jews.
Contrast this to the Parable of the Good Samaritan. An aspect of this most famous parable of Jesus, an answer to the question "who is my neighbor?", is that the hero of the story is a Samaritan. The Samaritans were considered apostates to Jesus' audience (and to Jesus himself, according to other passages). Yet Jesus was quite clear that the very one regarded as being of "the other" -- even as traitors to the faith -- is your neighbor (that is, the one whom you are commanded to love in the preceding passage). This is consistent with his other famous statement "Love your enemies, and do good to those who persecute you". Where is anything like this in the Qur'an or Sunnah?
I have hope -- though it's a faint one -- that these "scholars" are indicating some movement toward accepting the variety of "love of neighbor" that has formed the basis of western civilization, namely that this means even loving those you consider your ideological enemies. But I fear that the statement only cloaks the Qur'anic version of loving one's neighbor, which apparently also includes hating everyone else.
4. I admit not to having read the entire Hadith literature. But if that one quotation is the summary of all it teaches regarding love of neighbor, and they are proposing building a dialogue and common ground upon it, then it is possibly time to pull up the drawbridge and prepare for war. Proposing "dialogue with christians" based only upon verses that openly repudiate christian doctrines and that exhort Muslims to shore up their internal alliances but not make friendships outside Islam amounts to a cloaked threat in the semblance of an olive branch.
Posted by: Archimedes2 at October 11, 2007 5:08 PM
This is as silly as plagiarist asking you to accept that he owns the half of your book that he stole, thus you need to come together to share the profits equally.
Mohammad was a retrograde religous force, reverting the human spirit back to The Irrational Tyrant God model, reversing the achievement of a God of Love that characterizes Judaism and Christianity.
He not only stole their religion, he got it wrong.
The Pope and Jewish religious leaders need to respond:
"Let Muslims repent of their heresy, return to the original source of faith, and renounce the corrupt blasphemies of Mohammad."
Islam needs to reform, we do not need to deform.
Posted by: profitsbeard at October 11, 2007 5:10 PM
The survival of the world does not depend on whether Christians "make peace" with muslims; but the survival of the muslims might...
(Why didn't they find common ground BEFORE they attacked us?)
Posted by: angryeagle at October 11, 2007 5:28 PM
An interesting letter, all told, signed by 138 Islamic scholars representing "every sect of Islam." I wonder who coordinated this effort? Whose brainchild was it in the first place? And what is its purpose, coming at this time?
Are we then all to understand that that this letter is representative of the entire Ummah? Is such coordination still possible? Does this group of scholars have credibility among the Moslem masses? If so, then wouldn't it also be possible for these same Islamic scholars to go one further: How about reopening ijtihad?
If these individuals have a mandate to carry a message to Christians, then I think it's reasonable to expect that they can fetch one back to their communities: reopen ijtihad. Change. Reform. Find a way of coming into the modern world. Altogether reasonable, one would suppose. But since when does reason have anything to do with it?
at October 11, 2007 5:35 PM
The way to stop the war and thus save mankind from itself is not more Taqqiya calls of interfaith dialogue, but a separation of the two worlds.
What this letter is doing is to buy some time such that demographics make it unnecessary for Muslims to make any further Taqqiya calls for interfaith dialogue.
Posted by: DP111 at October 11, 2007 5:36 PM
Have to hand it to those mohammedans. They're always so busy driving wedges between the Christians and the Jews, it's a wonder they have time for all their prayers.
This weekend Reuven Firestone and his pal Kahleel Mohammed, et al tried to drive the wedge at the local JCC where they arrogantly lied to the clueless Jews how their Jehovah and allah were the same, mohammedans and Jews are the real one-god brothers, and how those nasty Christians keep stirring up antisemitism.
Here we have an example of mohammedans trying to drive a global wedge to separate the Christians and Jews. And yes I too think it's a call to all us kafirs to come and join the party and do the mobot
rag.
at October 11, 2007 5:41 PM
I'm not sure I agree with all the assessments expressed in the other comments, that this is a threat letter. I think it is something even more insidious. I believe this is part of the propaganda push by Islam to infiltrate our country by altering our perceptions of Islam. As many have commented, Islam is not really interested in dialog with Christians or Jews, or with peace with the west. (See any of the books or videos offered on this website for a more complete discussion of this). In the 20th century, Islam has pushed the notion that 1. Islam is peaceful (even with all the obvious evidence to the contrary, this is being believed by more and more people) and 2. that 'Allah' is the same as the God of Abraham - the creator of the universe and everything in it (other comments have rightly shown the difference of character between these two, yet most people including clergy will not dispute it).
This letter seems to be part of the next phase of Islamic propaganda that has been blossoming everywhere I look. It is targeted at Christians. The idea is to make it look like Islam is the next "phase" of Christianity. Here are examples of what I've seen: 1. Billboards advertising websites to show you that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance. 2. Bumper stickers that say something like "find Jesus in the Quran" 3. The case of that Anglican lady minister that became a Muslim and is trying to convince people that you can be both. 4. The recent pushes by Muslim parents to remove things offensive to them from our schools (jello leaps to mind here) 5. The creation of 'fake' Ramadan songs so they can be sung during the Holiday concerts at schools (they used to be Christmas concerts, just so you know what I'm referring to) I know this one directly from my niece who is a 5th grade teacher.
This letter is trying to instill the mindset that since we have so much in common (but only if you use their dictionary definitions) that the religions are really all equivalent or the same, therefore Islam is not a threat, and is actually misunderstood and victimized by those who are religious bigots, and it really should be adopted or at least never criticized. I'm sure they know this is the only way that Islam can ever take over the United States, because they could never conquer us with warfare, they'll use our own love of freedoms to ensnare people's minds with this "common ground" rhetoric.
I think the out and out threat will come after that objective is acheived, because then, few will dare oppose it, and those who do will be shouted down.
at October 11, 2007 5:45 PM
"It is expected to be followed by a joint conference between Muslim and Christian world leaders at on 'neutral' ground, such as at a university in America."
neutral ground? a university in America? perhaps Columbia? or name any--except the announced conservative Christian ones--and you are not going to be on "neutral" ground.
at October 11, 2007 5:56 PM
.....so long as they do not wage war against Muslims on account of their religion,
Of course, any disregard for Islam, or Muslims is considered an attack, and thus, an excuse for violent retaliation.
I think something is brewing, they wouldn't be doing this olive branch stuff unless there is a very good reason for it.
Bin Laden invited Americans to make peace before 9/11 and look what happened.
Peace, Islam and Infidels just don't go together.
Posted by: Dsinc at October 11, 2007 6:00 PM
Archimedes2
Please go over to the Times site and write up a couple of posts.
Posted by: DP111 at October 11, 2007 6:07 PM
This is also part of a coordinated thrust by Muslims, led by Saudi Arabia. There is a conference in Denmark about the alleged lack of freedom of religion for Muslims in Europe. Then there is the OSCE conference in Cordoba, with Muslim representation, with Islamopobia in Europoe as one of the topics.
Everybody, please go over to the Times site and make comments. What I'm seeing there right now, is a concerted effort by Muslims to make capital out of this letter, and to drown out all other comments. Make multiple posts over a few hours or days. Muslims are now trying to drape themselves as peaceful, and our response has to be done with tact.
at October 11, 2007 6:25 PM
profitsbeard,
there is no way Islam can be reformed, it can only be dismantled, ridiculed, kept at bay with superior weaponry or by changing our education system to clearly innoculate the next generations so that they become immune towards Islams dissonant call.
Instead of the pathetic prostrating/kowtowing we see at present by the msm, the politicians, the far left university professors who are selling out faster than the hammer comes down at an auction, we need to did in and assert our values and superiority.
There is just no alternative.
Or Internment and mass-deportations. Total disengagement. But is that possible at all?
The whole Muhammedan world would collapse over night since they're unable to feed themsleves.
But only such drastic action would shake them out of the 7th century.
Posted by: sheik yer'mami at October 11, 2007 6:28 PM
Well, we KNOW all about THEIR notion of "making peace" is all about...case-in-point:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=9636F146-135E-4387-BCFB-32EED21805AC
(written by Robert himself, which deserves a thread unto itself)
It doesn't get any clearer than this.
Their notion of peace=
1) submission
2) dhimmitude
3) death
gee...nice choices for peace, eh?
LAN ASTASLEM!
...to this, or any other death cult!
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/9/24/152943.shtml
at October 11, 2007 6:46 PM
As if its the job of Christians to make peace with Muhammadans. When was the last time anyone heard of Christians beheading Muhammadans?
Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at October 11, 2007 6:48 PM
I was very encouraged to read that the Pope, in a meeting today with Jewish leaders, expressed grave concern over Iran. I just hope that if this interfaith dialogue takes place, that Christian leaders will likewise express that same concern to Muslim leaders.
It would be a waste of time to concentrate on theological differences, but Christian leaders should not be afraid to voice their disapproval over the many elements in Islam that call for violence and domination over people of other faiths. For example, as a Jew, I agree with the Koran's repudiation of the divinity of Jesus, but I abhor its contemptuous demeaning of Christian belief, its implied and open threats against Christians, and its calls for their subjugation as dhimmis. I also disagree with the Christian belief in turning the other cheek or in loving one's enemies, as that attitude encourages cruelty, and Islam is a cruel religion.
at October 11, 2007 6:50 PM
The only reason why islam continues to exist at all, is only because the West is NOT at war with it. My great fear, therefore, is that such a war will never come. It seems there is nothing islam can do to prod us, either as a nation, or as individuals, to fight. They have tried everything short of an atomic bomb, and yet we still refuse to fight. There is no resistance to islam at either the federal, state or municipal level. Indeed, official resistance is illegal.
Posted by: jihadwatcher at October 11, 2007 6:53 PM
jewdog:
The words spoken by Christ to "turn the other cheek" is meant to apply to small, everyday annoyances and problems. Sometimes when you are met with exasperating behavior, it's better to just turn from it and walk away. In no way did Jesus mean to ignore or even encourage bullying, aggression or hatred. Unfortunately, some Christians and the Left have "hijacked" this teaching and misinterpreted it as an endorsement to appeasement.
Posted by: atheling at October 11, 2007 7:03 PM
Muslims to Christians: make peace with us, or the survival of the world is at stake
Nothing new here, and nothing to figure out or resolve; its just another threat, same as all the other muslim threats.
I'm sticking with " the else!" as someone above already wrote.
Posted by: witness at October 11, 2007 7:08 PM
Why do I get the feeling that this is some sort of plague blossoming and beginning to take over the world? I just feel like we’re in it for the long haul possibly, most likely until I die and I’m just a young guy now. It’s like a slow burn, they’ve [muslims] been at it so long, and with a majority of inept leaders at the helm what can we really do to stop them? The only thing I feel like I can do at this point is tell my friends and alert my family to what's really going on in this country.
Posted by: Stinkyinfidel at October 11, 2007 7:18 PM
For example, as a Jew, I agree with the Koran's repudiation of the divinity of Jesus, but I abhor its contemptuous demeaning of Christian belief, its implied and open threats against Christians, and its calls for their subjugation as dhimmis. I also disagree with the Christian belief in turning the other cheek or in loving one's enemies, as that attitude encourages cruelty, and Islam is a cruel religion.
If it turns out that the divinity of Jesus is objectively true, it really wouldn't matter who repudiates the reality or doesn't like the way things turned out.
I guess we shall see what we shall see, but Jews and Christians seem to have a lot more in common with one another than either has wit islam.
As I understand Jesus, he was a Jew; practiced Judiism as did his followers; and the early Christian church argued over issues of Jewish custom.
That being the case, I don't see where Judisim tells anyone to be a door mat for oppression. Therefore, I don't believe that Jesus had this notion in mind either.
Like Jewish literature, Jesus could have been using irony and nuance to emphasis a more subtle point -- this of course is lost in a Western critique of what Jesus said.
In anycase, this cattle call from islam is bogus!
Posted by: witness at October 11, 2007 7:20 PM
How do we come to an understanding with differences like this between Mohamed's teachings,and Christ's teachings?
Mohammed was the prophet of war;-------- Christ is the Prince of Peace
Mohammed's disciples killed for the faith; ----------Christ's disciples were killed for their faith
Mohammed promoted persecution against the "infidels"; -------Christ forgave and converted the chief persecutor
Mohammed was the taker of life; ---------Christ was the giver of life
Mohammed and his fellow warriors murdered thousands; --------Christ murdered none but saved many
Mohammed's method was COMPULSION;-------- Christ's aim was voluntary CONVERSION
Mohammed practiced FORCE; --------Christ preached FAITH
Mohammed was a WARRIOR; Christ is a DELIVERER Mohammed conquered his enemies with the sword; Christ conquered his enemies with another kind of sword, the sword of the Spirit which is the Word of Godsaid, "Believe and live!"
Mohammed was swift to shed blood -------Christ shed His own blood for the salvation of many
Mohammed preached "Death to the infidels!"; --------Christ prayed "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do"
Mohammed declared a holy war (Jihad) against infidels;------- Christ achieved a holy victory on Calvary's cross and His followers share in that victory
Mohammed constrained people by conquest;--------- Christ constrained people by love
at October 11, 2007 7:33 PM
For those few who might still believe that Muslims truly want to "make peace" with Christians...read this: (You'll have to copy link and paste in your browser address bar)
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58076
I'd warn ANY religious leader (other than Muslim, of course) NEVER meet quietly with these folks...make sure there are plenty of witnesses - or your headless body may not be found for days (or longer!)
There are plenty of stories such as this....there are actually many Christians among the Khurds in Northern Iraq. But any Christians or Jews in the rest of Iraq are being severely tortured and killed! As they are in China, of course!
Posted by: Litl Bits at October 11, 2007 7:34 PM
This sums up the entire matter:
Oldie but goody.
http://ryjones.org/real_islam.jpg
at October 11, 2007 7:40 PM
Unfortunately, threatening retribution upon those who question the legitimacy and message of one's religion tends to give the impression said religion is rightly suspect of gross intolerance and illegitimacy.
One could ignore the lack of a birth right conferring legitimacy in the Abrahamic tradition, but it is impossible to ignore the global jiahd being waged in remote and primitive places where angry mobs of Islamists inspired by their glorious religion of peace stone offenders of Islam for purported crimes which are petty, inconsequential and pedestrian by Western standards.
I have long thought that Islam tends to make Westerners more tolerant of their fellow citizens. For, in its harshest and most punitive form, it shocks and outrages all civilized people. One tends to conclude, that life, itself, is the most sacred of gifts and that nobody should deprive another of his most sacred gift in the name of any religious dogma. Any belief system that purports to make people more moral, and, at the same time condones man's inhumanity to his fellow man is a religion that debases and dehumanizes it adherents.
Posted by: BurkasforHitlery at October 11, 2007 7:45 PM
Atheling wrote: The words spoken by Christ to "turn the other cheek" is meant to apply to small, everyday annoyances and problems. Sometimes when you are met with exasperating behavior, it's better to just turn from it and walk away. In no way did Jesus mean to ignore or even encourage bullying, aggression or hatred. Unfortunately, some Christians and the Left have "hijacked" this teaching and misinterpreted it as an endorsement to appeasement.
_______________
Atheling, I'm so glad that you clarified your interpretation of this important scripture. One man's annoyance is another woman's inspiration.
Posted by: BurkasforHitlery at October 11, 2007 8:08 PM
Atheling,
Thank you for the article on the Otranto Martyrs of 1480. It is a very good thing to remember what those who've come before us and had to face the same threat of tyrannical Islam have done to stand against it and how they defended with their lives their culture, their religion and their valuable personally held beliefs.
Because I was gone this past weekend with no access to a computer I neglected to post that October 7th was the Feast of the Most Holy Rosary, but I will do so now. This feast was instituted by Pope St. Pius V after the Battle of Lepanto. The book Heavenly Friends by Rosalie Marie Levy explains the value of the recitation of the Rosary regarding that famous battle:
"Legend has attributed the signal defeat of the Albigensian heretics at the battle of Muret in 1213 to the recitation of the Rosary by the Christian army under the direction of St. Dominic. There are numerous other instances where the faith of those who had recourse to this devotion in times of great distress has been rewarded. A striking example is that of the famous naval victory gained by Don Juan of Austria over the Turkish Fleet at Lepanto on Sunday, October 7th, 1571, on which day processions of the confraternities of the Holy Rosary were taking place in Rome.
When the Mohammedans were threatening to overrun Christian Europe, Pope Pius V, as early as 1569, had enjoined the recitation of the Rosary on all Christendom for the success of the Christian arms, and ordered all the churches to conduct the Forty Hours Devotion, with public processions and recitations of the Rosary.
Not only did Don Juan of Austria ascribe the triumph of his fleet in the battle of Lepanto to the powerful intercession of the Queen of the Most Holy Rosary, but the Venetian Senate wrote to the other States which had taken part in the Crusade: 'It was not generals nor battalions nor arms that brought us victory; but it was Our Lady of the Rosary".
The Feast of the Holy Rosary was instituted in thanksgiving for this famous naval victory. St. Pius V at first ordered that the happy event should be commemorated on October 7, under the title of the Commemoration of Our Lady of Victory. But, at the request of the Dominican Order, Pope Gregory XIII, by decree of April 1, 1573, substituted for it the first Sunday in October in all the churches which possess an altar dedicated to the Holy Rosary."
Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at October 11, 2007 8:39 PM
From the signatories:
Dr. Joseph Lumbard
Assistant Professor, Brandeis University, USA
http://www.thehoot.net/?module=displaystory&story_id=1015&edition_id=21&format=html
Prof. Dr. Ingrid Mattson
Professor of Islamic Studies and Christian-Muslim Relations and Director, Islamic
Chaplaincy Program, Hartford Seminary; President of the Islamic Society of North
America (ISNA), USA
http://macdonald.hartsem.edu/mattson.htm
Dr. Jean-Louis Michon
Author; Muslim Scholar; Architect; Former UNESCO expert, Switzerland
http://www.worldwisdom.com/Public/Authors/Detail.asp?AuthorID=27&WhatType=2
I picked these three because of their obvious non-Arabic names. Lombard is a convert; I suspect Mattson is also. Michon might not be Muslim.
If Michon is not Muslim, then WTF is he doing signing on to this threat?
at October 11, 2007 8:51 PM
sheik yer'mami-
Agreed.
Islam, to "reform", would have to stop being Islam.
I only meant it in the rhetorical sense.
(And as a convenient rhyme for "deform".)
If they removed the calls to violence from the Koran, Islam would lose all of its terroristic force that lets it intimidate Muslims into staying within the mental prison camp that is Islam.
Without the deat threats, Mohammadism would clear out so fast the mullahs' heads would spin off.
Posted by: profitsbeard at October 11, 2007 8:51 PM
Clay Marley, you can do what I did at 8:51. It is time consuming but with copying the name from the pdf and pasting them in a search bar in quotations it will go faster. I got positive results on several that I did not put in my posting. These appear to be big muckity-mucks in Islamdom, I think everyone of them might have an internet article.
Posted by: Pelayo at October 11, 2007 9:04 PM
Dear Pope and everyone else, here is the peace offering meant by these Muslims:
Ayatollah Khomeini: "Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill them, put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]…. Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for the Holy Warriors! There are hundreds of other [Qur’anic] psalms and Hadiths [sayings of the Prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all this mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim."
Clear enough?
Posted by: sounder at October 11, 2007 9:14 PM
I have not read the other comments but I am sure others must have pointed this by now, Jesus Christ did not say - he that is not with us is against us - rather he told his Apostles - he that is not against us is for us . If this is an accurate transcription of what Ms Glenhill wrote, she is a disgrace who cannot even cross check against any number of online Bibles, a skill within the ken of ten year olds.
Posted by: ivan at October 11, 2007 9:15 PM
Ivan, I suggest that you read these:
Matthew 12:30, Luke 11:23
A retraction is in order.
The Bible has no contradictions, eh?
Posted by: Pelayo at October 11, 2007 9:26 PM
Seems to me that in any conversation about 'the survival of the world' a billion+ Chinese (600 million nonreligious, 360 million Confucians/taoists, 105 million Buddhists) and some 800 million Indians (790 million Hindus, 20 million Sikhs) ought to have something to say.
Put Christians together with the rest of the non-Muslim world, and the Muslims are significantly outnumbered.
The Muslims are just trying to divide the camp of dar-al-Harb, by cutting off the Christians from the rest (others here have already noticed Muslim attempts to drive a wedge between Jews and Christians) and co-opting them as janissaries, just like they've done in the 'lesser jihad' against Israel.
They're going to tell the Christians - join us in battle against the Idolators and the Atheists, just like so many of you (useful idiots all! - see World Council of Churches) have joined us in the battle against the Evil Zionists. Well: this Christian says NO. I am not handing ANY fellow human being (Christian, nonbeliever, non-Muslim non-Christian, no matter) over to be murdered or enslaved by the murderous Mohammedans.
I hope that the church leaders who received this Letter (a veiled threat - Submit or Else We Destroy the World) have the courage to say: NO. God bless Pope Benedict: I will pray for him, that he may compose a worthy reply – perhaps like Tolkien’s Gandalf, ‘the light has come; the lie is broken’. I hope Rowan Williams has the wit to ask Bishop Sookhdeo and Bishop Nazir-Ali to write the Anglican reply.
There is one possible reply: a list giving the names of all those Christians (e.g. Mr Ayyad of the Palestine Bible Society, recently murdered by Muslims in Gaza, and those three martyrs in Turkey), Jews (in particular, Israeli Jews who have died in homicide bombings, sneak stabbings and snipings, etc), Buddhists (all those Thai schoolteachers and monks), Hindus, Sikhs, and animists, who in the past two or three years, say, have been murdered, or raped, or robbed, or kidnapped and held to ransom, by proudly-identifying Muslims who justified those evil deeds by quoting the Qur’an and claiming to be acting in the name of allah. And then, these words only: “What fellowship has light with darkness?”
Atheling – thanks so much for that article with the story of the martyrs of Otranto. Note particularly the words of that humble tailor, Antonio Primaldo, “My brothers, until today we have fought in defence of our homeland, to save our lives, and for our earthly governors; now it is time for us to fight to save our souls for our Lord”.
Mr Spencer: please do not leave it to our church leaders alone to reply to this Message from the Mohammedans. Be our Antonio Primaldo, and write the reply that ought to come from the ordinary confessing Christians of the world.
Post it here, alongside the Muslims’ letter in full.
And then I propose that those of us here who can find the courage, whether posters or lurkers, who are in agreement with what you have written, should email you with our names, religious confession and citizenship (for instance: I would identify myself as ‘[name], communicant member of the Anglican Church in Australia, citizen of the Commonwealth of Australia, loyal subject of her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, and proud descendant of Scots Presbyterians, Danish and German Lutherans, English Methodists and Anglicans, and Irish Catholics), so that you may name us as co-signatories.
Send a copy to every church leader who got that Muslim letter – so they know what we want them to say. Are we brave enough to send it , also, to the Muslim letter-writers themselves? Antonio Primaldo didn’t wait for anyone to speak for him. He had seen his unarmed archbishop murdered in cold blood on the steps of the church. He knew what he faced. But he refused to submit and betray either his country or his heavenly Lord.
I guess this is where the rubber hits the road.
at October 11, 2007 9:27 PM
Them's fightin' words, sounder.
Posted by: champ at October 11, 2007 9:28 PM
Tgusa, please read Ivan's comments again.
Ivan was referencing Mark 9:40 and Luke 9:50.
I referenced Matthew 12:30, Luke 11:23.
For he that is not against us(me)is for us(me).
OR
He that is not with me is against me.
These passages seem to have slightly different meanings.
I'll pass comment on the personal insult.
Posted by: Pelayo at October 11, 2007 9:50 PM
Post script to my remarks above: this business of the Muslim Letter to the Christians (and let us remember they do not, and cannot, distinguish between 'christians' and 'christian-majority [secular] states') reminds me strongly of 2 Kings 18 and 19; in particular verses 14 of chapter 19.
"And Hezekiah received the letter from the hand of the messengers, and read it; and Hezekiah went up into the house of the LORD, and spread it before the LORD."
I do most earnestly pray that King Hezekiah's example, as described there, may be followed by Pope Benedict XVI, and the Orthodox Patriarchs, especially the Greek and Russian and Serb Patriarchs (whose forebears led their flocks through the long black night of Muslim Turkish tyranny) and the Archbishop of Canterbury, and every other Christian leader who receives this insolent letter from the Mohammedans, which effectively threatens world destruction unless...unless what? unless we Christians let the Mohammedans dictate to us what we may say, or believe, or do, and what we may think, or not think, or say, or not say, about Islam, Mohammed, the Quran, Muslim history, Muslim crimes against non-Muslims? Unless we muzzle our evangelists?
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at October 11, 2007 9:54 PM
Who would have any faith in a Muslim treaty? I thought I read in the Koran that all treaties with Infidels were bogus, only done for the purpose of gaining an advantage?
Let them quench the thirst for Christian blood in their own herd as murder, oppression and thuggery are are flung on Christians and non-Muslims daily throughout the world. They also butcher themselves in daily frequency. Why would anyone consider their terms when their ranks are filled with evil?
at October 11, 2007 10:04 PM
Tgusa, I will admit to one absurd confrontation with Hugh, and I regret it. I am sure I will never be allowed to forget it either. Plese find those places where I have questioned Robert on substance.
I have probably smeared several states, which one in particular? New Mexico?
All I did was try to point out that Ivan was wrong in his condemnation of Glenhill at 9:15.
I will apologize for this: "The Bible has no contradictions, eh?"
As far I my religion, I have given up on the idea.
at October 11, 2007 10:18 PM
Tgusa, the entire 5th chapter of Matthew is an exhortation to turn one's cheek in response to injustice and persecution and the condemnation of one sin as equivocal to all sin.
44 But I say to you "love your enemies, bless those who cure you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you,
45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust.
This is one of The Bible's most important and difficult teachings to practice and to uphold. If you reread my post you will see that violence is antithetical to Christ's teachings. Therefore, any religious ideology that uses violence as a means to incite, justify or condone violence, as Islam does, is antithetical to Christ's teaching and His message.
Posted by: BurkasforHitlery at October 11, 2007 10:25 PM
Tgusa, the entire 5th chapter of Matthew is an exhortation to turn one's cheek in response to injustice and persecution and the condemnation of one sin as equivocal to all sin.
44 But I say to you "love your enemies, bless those who cure you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you,
45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust.
This is one of The Bible's most important and difficult teachings to practice and to uphold. If you reread my post you will see that violence is antithetical to Christ's teachings. Therefore, any religious ideology that uses violence as a means to incite, justify or condone violence, as Islam does, is antithetical to Christ's teaching and His message.
Posted by: BurkasforHitlery at October 11, 2007 10:27 PM
Tgusa, the entire 5th chapter of Matthew is an exhortation to turn one's cheek in response to injustice and persecution and the condemnation of one sin as equivocal to all sin.
44 But I say to you "love your enemies, bless those who cure you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you,
45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust.
This is one of The Bible's most important and difficult teachings to practice and to uphold. If you reread my post you will see that violence is antithetical to Christ's teachings. Therefore, any religious ideology that uses violence as a means to incite, justify or condone violence, as Islam does, is antithetical to Christ's teaching and His message.
Posted by: BurkasforHitlery at October 11, 2007 10:28 PM
Tgusa, the entire 5th chapter of Matthew is an exhortation to turn one's cheek in response to injustice and persecution and the condemnation of one sin as equivocal to all sin.
44 But I say to you "love your enemies, bless those who cure you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you,
45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust.
This is one of The Bible's most important and difficult teachings to practice and to uphold. If you reread my post you will see that violence is antithetical to Christ's teachings. Therefore, any religious ideology that uses violence as a means to incite, justify or condone violence, as Islam does, is antithetical to Christ's teaching and His message.
Posted by: BurkasforHitlery at October 11, 2007 10:30 PM
Tgusa, the entire 5th chapter of Matthew is an exhortation to turn one's cheek in response to injustice and persecution and the condemnation of one sin as equivocal to all sin.
44 But I say to you "love your enemies, bless those who cure you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you,
45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust.
This is one of The Bible's most important and difficult teachings to practice and to uphold. If you reread my post you will see that violence is antithetical to Christ's teachings. Therefore, any religious ideology that uses violence as a means to incite, justify or condone violence, as Islam does, is antithetical to Christ's teaching and His message.
Posted by: BurkasforHitlery at October 11, 2007 10:30 PM
Tgusa, the entire 5th chapter of Matthew is an exhortation to turn one's cheek in response to injustice and persecution and the condemnation of one sin as equivocal to all sin.
44 But I say to you "love your enemies, bless those who cure you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you,
45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust.
This is one of The Bible's most important and difficult teachings to practice and to uphold. If you reread my post you will see that violence is antithetical to Christ's teachings. Therefore, any religious ideology that uses violence as a means to incite, justify or condone violence, as Islam does, is antithetical to Christ's teaching and His message.
Posted by: BurkasforHitlery at October 11, 2007 10:31 PM
Tgusa, the entire 5th chapter of Matthew is an exhortation to turn one's cheek in response to injustice and persecution and the condemnation of one sin as equivocal to all sin.
44 But I say to you "love your enemies, bless those who cure you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you,
45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust.
This is one of The Bible's most important and difficult teachings to practice and to uphold. If you reread my post you will see that violence is antithetical to Christ's teachings. Therefore, any religious ideology that uses violence as a means to incite, justify or condone violence, as Islam does, is antithetical to Christ's teaching and His message.
Posted by: BurkasforHitlery at October 11, 2007 10:31 PM
Tgusa, the entire 5th chapter of Matthew is an exhortation to turn one's cheek in response to injustice and persecution and the condemnation of one sin as equivocal to all sin.
44 But I say to you "love your enemies, bless those who cure you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you,
45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust.
This is one of The Bible's most important and difficult teachings to practice and to uphold. If you reread my post you will see that violence is antithetical to Christ's teachings. Therefore, any religious ideology that uses violence as a means to incite, justify or condone violence, as Islam does, is antithetical to Christ's teaching and His message.
Posted by: BurkasforHitlery at October 11, 2007 10:34 PM
Tgusa, the entire 5th chapter of Matthew is an exhortation to turn one's cheek in response to injustice and persecution and the condemnation of one sin as equivocal to all sin.
44 But I say to you "love your enemies, bless those who cure you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you,
45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust.
This is one of The Bible's most important and difficult teachings to practice and to uphold. If you reread my post you will see that violence is antithetical to Christ's teachings. Therefore, any religious ideology that uses violence as a means to incite, justify or condone violence, as Islam does, is antithetical to Christ's teaching and His message.
Posted by: BurkasforHitlery at October 11, 2007 10:38 PM
How can these Muslim leaders be so obtuse? Do they truly have no understanding of Christian concepts? Do they think we have no understanding of the phrase (repeated over and over in this letter) "God has no partners" and "God has no associates"? We know what it means. It is a denial of the deity of Jesus Christ.
Which is fine! They can believe whatever they want. But, they also state no help should come to those who have angered God or been led astray. And that is specifically pointing out Christians who believe Jesus died for their sins, as well as those of the Jewish faith. They repeat this over and over. So what is the point of this exercise? It seems to be some kind of warning.
They say, "come to a common word between us and you, that we worship none other than God, and we shall ascribe no partner to him."
I'm sorry, but this is exactly what Christianity does. It ascribes three people to a godhead, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
Therefore, Christianity can in no way do such a thing as deny this, because to do so is to deny their faith as well - Christianity would cease to exist!
I have a question to ask these Muslims - we can talk if they can answer this to Christians' satisfaction: "Why do you feel compelled to deny the Sonship of Jesus Christ five times every day?"
Five times each day, during prayers, it is proclaimed, "He begot none, nor is he begotten." Why is this declaration pronounced five times each and every day? This is offensive to Christians.
Posted by: Kay at October 11, 2007 10:38 PM
Tgusa, the entire 5th chapter of Matthew is an exhortation to turn one's cheek in response to injustice and persecution and the condemnation of one sin as equivocal to all sin.
44 But I say to you "love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you,
45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust.
This is one of The Bible's most important and difficult teachings to practice and to uphold. If you reread my post you will see that violence is antithetical to Christ's teachings. Therefore, any religious ideology that uses violence as a means to incite, justify or condone violence, as Islam does, is antithetical to Christ's teaching and His message.
Posted by: BurkasforHitlery at October 11, 2007 10:38 PM
Tgusa, the entire 5th chapter of Matthew is an exhortation to turn one's cheek in response to injustice and persecution and the condemnation of one sin as equivocal to all sin.
44 But I say to you "love your enemies, bless those who cure you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you,
45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust.
This is one of The Bible's most important and difficult teachings to practice and to uphold. If you reread my post you will see that violence is antithetical to Christ's teachings. Therefore, any religious ideology that uses violence as a means to incite, justify or condone violence, as Islam does, is antithetical to Christ's teaching and His message.
Posted by: BurkasforHitlery at October 11, 2007 10:38 PM
Tgusa, the entire 5th chapter of Matthew is an exhortation to turn one's cheek in response to injustice and persecution and the condemnation of one sin as equivocal to all sin.
44 But I say to you "love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you,
45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust.
This is one of The Bible's most important and difficult teachings to practice and to uphold. If you reread my post you will see that violence is antithetical to Christ's teachings. Therefore, any religious ideology that uses violence as a means to incite, justify or condone violence, as Islam does, is antithetical to Christ's teaching and His message.
Posted by: BurkasforHitlery at October 11, 2007 10:38 PM
Tgusa, the entire 5th chapter of Matthew is an exhortation to turn one's cheek in response to injustice and persecution and the condemnation of one sin as equivocal to all sin.
44 But I say to you "love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you,
45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust.
This is one of The Bible's most important and difficult teachings to practice and to uphold. If you reread my post you will see that violence is antithetical to Christ's teachings. Therefore, any religious ideology that uses violence as a means to incite, justify or condone violence, as Islam does, is antithetical to Christ's teaching and His message.
Posted by: BurkasforHitlery at October 11, 2007 10:40 PM
Tgusa, the entire 5th chapter of Matthew is an exhortation to turn one's cheek in response to injustice and persecution and the condemnation of one sin as equivocal to all sin.
44 But I say to you "love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you,
45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust.
This is one of The Bible's most important and difficult teachings to practice and to uphold. If you reread my post you will see that violence is antithetical to Christ's teachings. Therefore, any religious ideology that uses violence as a means to incite, justify or condone violence, as Islam does, is antithetical to Christ's teaching and His message.
Posted by: BurkasforHitlery at October 11, 2007 10:40 PM
Tgusa, the entire 5th chapter of Matthew is an exhortation to turn one's cheek in response to injustice and persecution and the condemnation of one sin as equivocal to all sin.
44 But I say to you "love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you,
45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust.
This is one of The Bible's most important and difficult teachings to practice and to uphold. If you reread my post you will see that violence is antithetical to Christ's teachings. Therefore, any religious ideology that uses violence as a means to incite, justify or condone violence, as Islam does, is antithetical to Christ's teaching and His message.
Posted by: BurkasforHitlery at October 11, 2007 10:40 PM
Tgusa, the entire 5th chapter of Matthew is an exhortation to turn one's cheek in response to injustice and persecution and the condemnation of one sin as equivocal to all sin.
44 But I say to you "love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you,
45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust.
This is one of The Bible's most important and difficult teachings to practice and to uphold. If you reread my post you will see that violence is antithetical to Christ's teachings. Therefore, any religious ideology that uses violence as a means to incite, justify or condone violence, as Islam does, is antithetical to Christ's teaching and His message.
Posted by: BurkasforHitlery at October 11, 2007 10:40 PM
Tgusa, the entire 5th chapter of Matthew is an exhortation to turn one's cheek in response to injustice and persecution and the condemnation of one sin as equivocal to all sin.
44 But I say to you "love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you,
45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust.
This is one of The Bible's most important and difficult teachings to practice and to uphold. If you reread my post you will see that violence is antithetical to Christ's teachings. Therefore, any religious ideology that uses violence as a means to incite, justify or condone violence, as Islam does, is antithetical to Christ's teaching and His message.
Posted by: BurkasforHitlery at October 11, 2007 10:40 PM
How can these Muslim leaders be so obtuse? Do they truly have no understanding of Christian concepts? Do they think we have no understanding of the phrase (repeated over and over in this letter) "God has no partners" and "God has no associates"? We know what it means. It is a denial of the deity of Jesus Christ.
Which is fine! They can believe whatever they want. But, they also state no help should come to those who have angered God or been led astray. And that is specifically pointing out Christians who believe Jesus died for their sins, as well as those of the Jewish faith. They repeat this over and over. So what is the point of this exercise? It seems to be some kind of warning.
They say, "come to a common word between us and you, that we worship none other than God, and we shall ascribe no partner to him."
I'm sorry, but this is exactly what Christianity does. It ascribes three people to a godhead, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
Therefore, Christianity can in no way do such a thing as deny this, because to do so is to deny their faith as well - Christianity would cease to exist!
I have a question to ask these Muslims - we can talk if they can answer this to Christians' satisfaction: "Why do you feel compelled to deny the Sonship of Jesus Christ five times every day?"
Five times each day, during prayers, it is proclaimed, "He begot none, nor is he begotten." Why is this declaration pronounced five times each and every day? This is offensive to Christians.
Posted by: Kay at October 11, 2007 10:46 PM
A problem with your server? Or, my internet provider? My apologies for the duplicate posts.
Posted by: BurkasforHitlery at October 11, 2007 10:46 PM
A problem with your server? Or, my internet provider? My apologies for the duplicate posts.
Posted by: BurkasforHitlery at October 11, 2007 10:46 PM
A problem with your server? Or, my internet provider? My apologies for the duplicate posts.
Posted by: BurkasforHitlery at October 11, 2007 10:46 PM
How can these Muslim leaders be so obtuse? Do they truly have no understanding of Christian concepts? Do they think we have no understanding of the phrase (repeated over and over in this letter) "God has no partners" and "God has no associates"? We know what it means. It is a denial of the deity of Jesus Christ.
Which is fine! They can believe whatever they want. But, they also state no help should come to those who have angered God or been led astray. And that is specifically pointing out Christians who believe Jesus died for their sins, as well as those of the Jewish faith. They repeat this over and over. So what is the point of this exercise? It seems to be some kind of warning.
They say, "come to a common word between us and you, that we worship none other than God, and we shall ascribe no partner to him."
I'm sorry, but this is exactly what Christianity does. It ascribes three people to a godhead, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
Therefore, Christianity can in no way do such a thing as deny this, because to do so is to deny their faith as well - Christianity would cease to exist!
I have a question to ask these Muslims - we can talk if they can answer this to Christians' satisfaction: "Why do you feel compelled to deny the Sonship of Jesus Christ five times every day?"
Five times each day, during prayers, it is proclaimed, "He begot none, nor is he begotten." Why is this declaration pronounced five times each and every day? This is offensive to Christians.
Posted by: Kay at October 11, 2007 10:54 PM
Tgusa, your comments at 9:56 were rather harsh for someone who likes me.
This is something I have told twice; I think. This time I’ll elaborate.
I was a preschooler during the worst of the polio epidemics, I would put dimes in those cardboard holders placed in stores for The March of Dimes. I was also learning some songs, like "Jesus Loves the Little Children" and "Jesus Loves Me" I kept asking why so many children had polio. I would see pictures of kids my age trapped in those huge iron lungs. No one, not even my mother, could give me a satisfactory answer. When the Salk vaccine came along, people said that it must be a miracle and their prayers were answered. That era of my life has haunted me ever since, and I never came to grips with it. I avoided polio and every other childhood plague.
When I realized that Islam was an amalgam of Judaism and Christianity cobbled together by Mohammed for less than spiritual reasons, I concluded that all other religions were also man made.
Posted by: Pelayo at October 11, 2007 10:59 PM
I have been posting the following around the web in response to this letter.
"The Institute said: The letter is....an open invitation to Christians to unite with Muslims over the most essential aspects of their respective faiths - the principles of love of one God and love of the neighbour."
The above is the Muslim redefinition of the essentials of the Christian faith which Christians should be careful to reject. It seems sound. But it is still a false redefinition which also happens to be the most convenient to Muslim theology ie that the so-called Abrahamic religions, are essentially the same and differ only in the fullness of revealation and degree of purity, with Islam being the superlative form out of the three.
But thus has Islam always misunderstood the true essentials of the Christian faith. The essentials come down to belief in the Incarnation, Cruxifiction and Resurrection of Jesus and believing him to be the Second Person of the Holy Trinity and our Lord. All else for orthodox Christianity, including love of God and neighbor, is part and parcel of this belief but not separable from it.
The distinctives of each religion are not non-essential. They should not be dismissed any more than we should dismiss the differences between people. To focus on similarities is to gloss over differences. To do so is nothing less than to deny reality.
The differences between the two faiths are real and incompatible. This is not to say that peace is impossible, just that we shouldnt deny reality for its sake."
I think that most people here can agree with this. We should make a point to make the distinction. Thanks Robert for being one of the ones who do know the difference and arent afraid to say it.
Posted by: peggy32
at October 11, 2007 11:02 PM
I have been posting the following around the web in response to this letter.
"The Institute said: The letter is....an open invitation to Christians to unite with Muslims over the most essential aspects of their respective faiths - the principles of love of one God and love of the neighbour."
The above is the Muslim redefinition of the essentials of the Christian faith which Christians should be careful to reject. It seems sound. But it is still a false redefinition which also happens to be the most convenient to Muslim theology ie that the so-called Abrahamic religions, are essentially the same and differ only in the fullness of revealation and degree of purity, with Islam being the superlative form out of the three.
But thus has Islam always misunderstood the true essentials of the Christian faith. The essentials come down to belief in the Incarnation, Cruxifiction and Resurrection of Jesus and believing him to be the Second Person of the Holy Trinity and our Lord. All else for orthodox Christianity, including love of God and neighbor, is part and parcel of this belief but not separable from it.
The distinctives of each religion are not non-essential. They should not be dismissed any more than we should dismiss the differences between people. To focus on similarities is to gloss over differences. To do so is nothing less than to deny reality.
The differences between the two faiths are real and incompatible. This is not to say that peace is impossible, just that we shouldnt deny reality for its sake."
I think that most people here can agree with this. We should make a point to make the distinction. Thanks Robert for being one of the ones who do know the difference and arent afraid to say it.
Posted by: peggy32
at October 11, 2007 11:02 PM
I have been posting the following around the web in response to this letter.
"The Institute said: The letter is....an open invitation to Christians to unite with Muslims over the most essential aspects of their respective faiths - the principles of love of one God and love of the neighbour."
The above is the Muslim redefinition of the essentials of the Christian faith which Christians should be careful to reject. It seems sound. But it is still a false redefinition which also happens to be the most convenient to Muslim theology ie that the so-called Abrahamic religions, are essentially the same and differ only in the fullness of revealation and degree of purity, with Islam being the superlative form out of the three.
But thus has Islam always misunderstood the true essentials of the Christian faith. The essentials come down to belief in the Incarnation, Cruxifiction and Resurrection of Jesus and believing him to be the Second Person of the Holy Trinity and our Lord. All else for orthodox Christianity, including love of God and neighbor, is part and parcel of this belief but not separable from it.
The distinctives of each religion are not non-essential. They should not be dismissed any more than we should dismiss the differences between people. To focus on similarities is to gloss over differences. To do so is nothing less than to deny reality.
The differences between the two faiths are real and incompatible. This is not to say that peace is impossible, just that we shouldnt deny reality for its sake."
I think that most people here can agree with this. We should make a point to make the distinction. Thanks Robert for being one of the ones who do know the difference and arent afraid to say it.
Posted by: peggy32
at October 11, 2007 11:02 PM
I have been posting the following around the web in response to this letter.
"The Institute said: The letter is....an open invitation to Christians to unite with Muslims over the most essential aspects of their respective faiths - the principles of love of one God and love of the neighbour."
The above is the Muslim redefinition of the essentials of the Christian faith which Christians should be careful to reject. It seems sound. But it is still a false redefinition which also happens to be the most convenient to Muslim theology ie that the so-called Abrahamic religions, are essentially the same and differ only in the fullness of revealation and degree of purity, with Islam being the superlative form out of the three.
But thus has Islam always misunderstood the true essentials of the Christian faith. The essentials come down to belief in the Incarnation, Cruxifiction and Resurrection of Jesus and believing him to be the Second Person of the Holy Trinity and our Lord. All else for orthodox Christianity, including love of God and neighbor, is part and parcel of this belief but not separable from it.
The distinctives of each religion are not non-essential. They should not be dismissed any more than we should dismiss the differences between people. To focus on similarities is to gloss over differences. To do so is nothing less than to deny reality.
The differences between the two faiths are real and incompatible. This is not to say that peace is impossible, just that we shouldnt deny reality for its sake."
I think that most people here can agree with this. We should make a point to make the distinction. Thanks Robert for being one of the ones who do know the difference and arent afraid to say it.
Posted by: peggy32 at October 11, 2007 11:07 PM
Tgusa, I suspect you enjoy playing games with Scripture because of the way you responded to my post.
Selective interpretation of the fifth chapter of Matthew is your error, not mine. You still fail to understand that my post points out the incongruence between Islam's message and Christ's teaching with regard to the use of religion to wage violence and retribution.
Posted by: BurkasforHitlery at October 11, 2007 11:09 PM
Tgusa, I suspect you enjoy playing games with Scripture because of the way you responded to my post.
Selective interpretation of the fifth chapter of Matthew is your error, not mine. You still fail to understand that my post points out the incongruence between Islam's message and Christ's teaching with regard to the use of religion to wage violence and retribution.
Posted by: BurkasforHitlery at October 11, 2007 11:09 PM
Tgusa, I suspect you enjoy playing games with Scripture because of the way you responded to my post.
Selective interpretation of the fifth chapter of Matthew is your error, not mine. You still fail to understand that my post points out the incongruence between Islam's message and Christ's teaching with regard to the use of religion to wage violence and retribution.
Posted by: BurkasforHitlery at October 11, 2007 11:09 PM
Tgusa, I suspect you enjoy playing games with Scripture because of the way you responded to my post.
Selective interpretation of the fifth chapter of Matthew is your error, not mine. You still fail to understand that my post points out the incongruence between Islam's message and Christ's teaching with regard to the use of religion to wage violence and retribution.
Posted by: BurkasforHitlery at October 11, 2007 11:09 PM
Tgusa, I suspect you enjoy playing games with Scripture because of the way you responded to my post.
Selective interpretation of the fifth chapter of Matthew is your error, not mine. You still fail to understand that my post points out the incongruence between Islam's message and Christ's teaching with regard to the use of religion to wage violence and retribution.
Posted by: BurkasforHitlery at October 11, 2007 11:09 PM
Tgusa, I suspect you enjoy playing games with Scripture because of the way you responded to my post.
Selective interpretation of the fifth chapter of Matthew is your error, not mine. You still fail to understand that my post points out the incongruence between Islam's message and Christ's teaching with regard to the use of religion to wage violence and retribution.
Posted by: BurkasforHitlery at October 11, 2007 11:09 PM
I have been posting the following around the web in response to this letter.
"The Institute said: The letter is....an open invitation to Christians to unite with Muslims over the most essential aspects of their respective faiths - the principles of love of one God and love of the neighbour."
The above is the Muslim redefinition of the essentials of the Christian faith which Christians should be careful to reject. It seems sound. But it is still a false redefinition which also happens to be the most convenient to Muslim theology ie that the so-called Abrahamic religions, are essentially the same and differ only in the fullness of revealation and degree of purity, with Islam being the superlative form out of the three.
But thus has Islam always misunderstood the true essentials of the Christian faith. The essentials come down to belief in the Incarnation, Cruxifiction and Resurrection of Jesus and believing him to be the Second Person of the Holy Trinity and our Lord. All else for orthodox Christianity, including love of God and neighbor, is part and parcel of this belief but not separable from it.
The distinctives of each religion are not non-essential. They should not be dismissed any more than we should dismiss the differences between people. To focus on similarities is to gloss over differences. To do so is nothing less than to deny reality.
The differences between the two faiths are real and incompatible. This is not to say that peace is impossible, just that we shouldnt deny reality for its sake."
I think that most people here can agree with this. We should make a point to make the distinction. Thanks Robert for being one of the ones who do know the difference and arent afraid to say it.
Posted by: peggy32 at October 11, 2007 11:18 PM
Pelayo, you are correct man. I apologise unreservedly for the slur on Ms Glenhill.
at October 11, 2007 11:19 PM
Tgusa, I suspect you enjoy playing games with Scripture because of the way you responded to my post.
Selective interpretation of the fifth chapter of Matthew is your error, not mine. You still fail to understand that my post points out the incongruence between Islam's message and Christ's teaching with regard to the use of religion to wage violence and retribution.
Posted by: BurkasforHitlery at October 11, 2007 11:19 PM
People are going to have to be patient. There is one of those cyberspace hiccups going on. When the POST button is pressed, give it time.
Posted by: Pelayo at October 11, 2007 11:19 PM
I have been posting the following around the web in response to this letter.
"The Institute said: The letter is....an open invitation to Christians to unite with Muslims over the most essential aspects of their respective faiths - the principles of love of one God and love of the neighbour."
The above is the Muslim redefinition of the essentials of the Christian faith which Christians should be careful to reject. It seems sound. But it is still a false redefinition which also happens to be the most convenient to Muslim theology ie that the so-called Abrahamic religions, are essentially the same and differ only in the fullness of revealation and degree of purity, with Islam being the superlative form out of the three.
But thus has Islam always misunderstood the true essentials of the Christian faith. The essentials come down to belief in the Incarnation, Cruxifiction and Resurrection of Jesus and believing him to be the Second Person of the Holy Trinity and our Lord. All else for orthodox Christianity, including love of God and neighbor, is part and parcel of this belief but not separable from it.
The distinctives of each religion are not non-essential. They should not be dismissed any more than we should dismiss the differences between people. To focus on similarities is to gloss over differences. To do so is nothing less than to deny reality.
The differences between the two faiths are real and incompatible. This is not to say that peace is impossible, just that we shouldnt deny reality for its sake."
I think that most people here can agree with this. We should make a point to make the distinction. Thanks Robert for being one of the ones who do know the difference and arent afraid to say it.
Posted by: peggy32 at October 11, 2007 11:22 PM
Pelayo, you are correct man. I humbly apologise for the slur on Ms Glenhill.
at October 11, 2007 11:22 PM
Pelayo:
The contradictions you find in Scripture reflect a truth about the condition of man, and is symbolized by Christ's cross.
Posted by: atheling at October 11, 2007 11:22 PM
Looks like I had to eat crow twice. Stupid server...
at October 11, 2007 11:37 PM
By looking at the time stamps on the comments it appears that this thread has a traffic problem.
Posted by: Pelayo at October 11, 2007 11:40 PM
Qur'an 5:17, which says that those who believe in the divinity of Christ are unbelievers, or 4:171, which says that Jesus was not crucified, or 9:30, which says that those who believe that Jesus is the Son of God are accursed, or 9:29, which mandates warfare against and the subjugation of Jews and Christians.
And 1 John 2:22 Who is the liar if it is not the one that denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one that denies the Father and the son.
1 John 4:3 But every spirit that confesses not that Jesus does not originate with God. Furthermore, this is the antichrist's (inspired expression) which you have heard was coming and now is already in the world.
So the question is, how does one deal with this conflict?
at October 11, 2007 11:54 PM
Isabella:
Thanks for the post on the Rosary. If you google "Rosary Crusade" you'll find the National Rosary Crusade, which is started on October 7 (naturally!). In the same spirit which moved thousands to pray the Rosary for victory at Lepanto and over Communist conrol in Austria after WWII, the Rosary Crusade in America is about defeating Islamofascism and saving America.
All you praying folk, keep on praying!
Posted by: atheling at October 12, 2007 12:00 AM
"Therefore, any religious ideology that uses violence as a means to incite, justify or condone violence, as Islam does, is antithetical to Christ's teaching and His message."
Indeed, BurkasforHilary, it would seem that Islam is the Anti Christ.
at October 12, 2007 12:03 AM
I've just taken a stroll through the entire text of this very interesting - and subtly threatening - Letter from the Mohammedans to the Christians. Unfortunately for its authors, I've been reading Robert's Quran blog, so some of the subtler points of the snow job that they're attempting, failed to slither past.
This thing needs to be thoroughly deconstructed.
The list of 138 scholars bears examination.
I note that it includes, among others, a certain Nihad Awad of CAIR, of whom we have heard not a little at Jihadwatch.
There are a number of Iranians, and some Sudanese, and a lot of Saudi Arabians. Now, they might be 'dissidents' - or they might not.
There is a 'Palestinian', Al-Tamimi, of whom I believe we have also heard things here, on occasion.
Perhaps the folks at MEMRI could run this list of '138 scholars' of Islam through their sieve, and see what cross-references they turn up?
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at October 12, 2007 12:06 AM
DeadRecknoning, It does not bother me that both religions have similar opinions about disbelievers. They are accursed, evil, and just plain bad people. If these statements about unbelievers were not in the scriptures, it would be the Rotarians and not a religion.
The difference is what people are allowed to do to the bad ones. In Islam one is allowed to kill them if they do not eventually toe the line. In Christianity, people are admonished to pray for their souls. That is a profound difference and will set the stage for a final war.
Posted by: Pelayo at October 12, 2007 12:13 AM
I also was checking out the list of authors.
I noticed not ONE female.
Typical.
Posted by: Kay at October 12, 2007 12:18 AM
dumbledoresarmy said...
Put Christians together with the rest of the non-Muslim world, and the Muslims are significantly outnumbered.
Yes, there is that. Add the fact that there aren't many Muslim countries (any?) that can build a fighter jet, or even an automobile that any western citizen would buy were it to be exported. And ultimately in an all out war industrial capacity and innovation ultimately prevail. Muslims are good at dying for their beliefs and Westerners are good at seeing that they do, particularly when the PC nicety of worrying about world opinion gives way to the need to survive. So I don't see that the survival of the world is at stake. But the survival of the Muslim world perhaps is. Since the loyalty to the community of Islam supersedes national loyalties perhaps an attack by any Islamic country should be treated as an attack by every Muslim country and responded to as such. Our so called allies Saudi Arabia and Pakistan look more like enemies to me. We will ultimately be confronted with all out war or lives of subjugation and slavery. Read the Koran and look at Muslim dominated countries if you doubt this. The only alternative might be enough folks saying "What a hoot! Y'all really believe that sh*t?" But without Islam a billion or more folks wouldn't know how to wipe their asses or eat.
at October 12, 2007 12:19 AM
Kay, see my post at 8:51 - Ingrid Mattson
Posted by: Pelayo at October 12, 2007 12:20 AM
I'm certain this is passage, which is fundametal to Christianity:
The Supremacy of Christ
15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.
17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.
19For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
*********
That is Colossians Chapter 1. If that doesn't have them running and screaming for cover, I don't know what else would.
This is the antithesis of 'common word' or common ground with Muslims. It directly contradicts the concept of God in that letter.
Tell me, if we are 'astray' when we believe these words, then don't we become an object of anger if we reject Islam's gentle words of correction? Yes, I am sure that is so!
These words are the foundation of our faith. To deny them, we would no longer be Christian.
Posted by: Kay at October 12, 2007 12:33 AM
And this passage, also Colossians makes a laughingstock of the idea that our obedience to a set of rules has anything to do with the belief system of Christianity:
Colossians 2:8:
See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.
For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority.
In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature,not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.
When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.
16Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ...
...Since you died with Christ to the basic principles of this world, why, as though you still belonged to it, do you submit to its rules: "Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!"?
These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.
****************
This shows that Christianity has no common ground with another faith that depends upon obedience to rules in order to be considered OK.
The Good Book says, "...they lack any value..."
Christianity doesn't work that way. Instead, all infractions are written on a paper, then nailed to a cross, saying "paid in full". They no longer exist. They were 'taken away'.
at October 12, 2007 12:44 AM
How appropriate that Matt 12:30 came into focus, because Matt 12:29 is:
"Or how can anyone enter the strong man's house and carry off his property, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house."
Posted by: ofcourse at October 12, 2007 1:17 AM
John 3:16:
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
at October 12, 2007 1:32 AM
FredIsinglass and MosheC
Sirs, I think you misinterpret my words and miss my point. This is a PR campaign as DP111 points out (possibly from the FOREIGN based Saudi Lobby). I think Archimedes2 and Peggy32's comments have more of a chance to educate and convince the Amercican public and non-violent Muslims than calls for the eradication of Islam.
I think it is a better strategy to embrace their call for dialogue in loving kindness and social courtesy and then use it as an opportunity to directly confront them on Robert's points.
How is it helpful to paint all Muslims in a corner and thereby prove to them that the West does want to destroy their religion?
Yes, I understand the idea of a false truce, from the Barbary Coast to Arafat, but I don't think that most folks do. If all this is just a manipulative stunt, at best, or a warning, at worst, taking an immediately hostile stance is more likely to discredit you in front of your, and THEIR, target audience.
I don't think all Muslims are Al Q, and to the extent that a wedge can be driven between the most radical Islamnists and "secular" Muslims it should be exploited. We seem to be using that well in Iraq. This is an educational opportunity - don't blow it.
and, no, I don't agree with President Bush's muddled thinking that we all worship the same God (and who is he to say, anyway, the President of the Universalist States of America?) - there are specific reasons why there are 3 separate major religions with some basic incompatibilties of faith.
In particular I found helpful the discussion about 'code words' meaning the rejection of Christ's divinity and identifying Israel as the entity pushing Muslims their homes. This information is better conveyed without the vitrial.
If, indeed, this is a 'last' offer of peace and a veiled warning, then you better be able to explain it in a way that people who are not already convnced can really understand the ramifications.
Thank you Robert for your amazng service!
(and thank you Archimedes2 and Peggy32)
at October 12, 2007 1:34 AM
Battle lines are being drawn and it's decision time:
“And if it seems evil to you to serve the LORD, choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.” Joshua 24:15
Posted by: champ at October 12, 2007 1:57 AM
Sashland that's ridiculous. That letter isn't an invitation for peace nor is it an invitation for dialog. They know a clash exists, but the thing is they can care less.
This letter is nothing more than a response to the Pope's declaration that Muslims reject the evils of Islam. Instead of dealing with the issues the Pope raised, they do what Muslims usually do (with more than a bit of trickery): they divert attention to the issues by countering that Christians affirm their fascist belief system, so they can keep being out there plus have support for their beliefs.
Posted by: ofcourse at October 12, 2007 2:12 AM
islam means peace. convert to islam or no peace, it's that simple. convert or die.
i believe that this is the final message before fundamentalist islam puts into effect "american hiroshima".
we have been warned. we refused their last 2 messages.
and now we ignore (rightly so) this latest one from muslim "scholars".
i just hope that the US has contingency plans for dealing with 10 nukes within our borders and who we will strike first when this happens.
ramadam ends soon.
today i'm stockpiling, and preparing for the worst. please do the same.
Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at October 12, 2007 4:15 AM
Hmmm...well, hope not...but there is a possibility things could get a little dicey soon...perhaps as soon as this weekend.
http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=4665
(syria gearing for something big)
Mind you, speculation...but looking at events, especially recent ones, it does raise ones hair a bit...especially with so many "playing pieces" in a certain region (and not just ours).
Something's brewing...and nobody goes to such lengths unless it's damned serious...and imminent (hint)
Posted by: jcom972 at October 12, 2007 4:28 AM
And with this coming in...it may be an understatement.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071011/D8S79UHO0.html
When any country uses the "L" word (they never do so unless they know they can bluff & win, or call the others' bluff outright).
Well, the gauntlet's been thrown down now.
(leon, if you can't stock anything else right off- make sure to concentrate on water. Rule of thumb- 2 gals/person/day, 1/day absolute minimum. You can make it lot longer w/o than w/o water. Then work on the other things. I've already got mine in place...2 months worth, working on 3-6)
Posted by: jcom972 at October 12, 2007 4:36 AM
Here's one more reminder...
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/123724
If it does prove true after all, it means this:
(if I may be so bold as to paraphrase a former Chief of Staff on a similar occasion 6 decades ago)
The iranians are presenting today what amounts to an ultimatum (if this topic header hasn't already proven to be just that), if not the possibility of outright and open hostilities. Just what significance the date of October 12th set may have we do not know but be on the alert accordingly.
As of the time of this writing it's around 12 noon Israeli time, a little later in tehran.
Keep the eyes peeled. Looks like this might be a long weekend...I hope it's for naught.
Posted by: jcom972 at October 12, 2007 4:56 AM
Thanks, Of Course "that's ridiculous"
What a thoughtful and persuasive dismissal...
Other than the fact that the letter explicitly calls for a dialogue, you're right, its not an invitation for dialogue.
Now, please go back and (re)read what I wrote and tell me,
have you ever hear of jew-jitsu?
Sometimes it is better to absorb and redirect the energy, rather than push directly against aggression. Sometimes.
Are you telling me that a 7th Century mentality is more sophisticted at PR than the well-meanng folks on this blog?
Kind of like using humor in a debate instead of trying to scream louder... ('I won't hold your youth and inexperience against you')
'Of course, we are willing to dialogue with you, now let's have a discussion about a few of the words in this old book that all of the listeners should consider... do you still beat your wives?'
Posted by: Sashland at October 12, 2007 5:26 AM
Um, I believe that's spelled jujitsu.
lol
Jitkundo's better...but that's another story...
But that aside...best way with them is a stratagem.
After all, they've been somewhat successful...but we have a lot more experience at it over a very long time.
Screw dialogue...dialogue means diplomacy, and the only effective diplomacy those animals understand is a fully loaded gun platform.
Posted by: jcom972 at October 12, 2007 5:42 AM
Islamists and jihadis assume that God is on their side. Victory will be theirs in the long term because that is the will of God.
This letter, however, betrays uncertainty about the future.
Could be a ruse, to make us lower a guard.
Could be a warning, to satisfy Koranic prerequisites for a large-scale attack.
And could also be that the West has radical Islam on the ropes, and the folks who signed the letter are trying desperately to find some way to keep their side from committing infidel-assisted suicide.
One of the rules of war and conflict is that victory can be facilitated by allowing the defeated to save face. If you force someone into a corner, then you are turning them into a desperate wounded animal. If you allow them a little room to maneuveur, you have a shot at getting them to stand down.
Grant didn't humiliate Lee, and became a respected figure in the South. Lincoln was assassinated before he could replicate Grant's good faith on a national scale, and the tribulations of Reconstruction followed by Jim Crow apartheid flowed from that missed opportunity.
Yes, the letter from the Muslim scholars is annoying on various levels. Maybe it is a dangerous mistake to take it seriously. But if we are winning, and I believe we are, it could be a costly mistake to dismiss the letter out of hand.
We need to respond positively, even if only in a token, cautious way, to positive moves by our enemies and those affiliated by religion with our enemies. If we don't, we are not managing our war wisely, and the letter writers will be proven correct: a meaningful peace will become more elusive than would otherwise be the case.
Knee-jerk skepticism is a good default position to take when a warrior extends an olive branch. But to step tentatively beyond the default response is a good thing when it is done from a position of strength. I hope this letter receives some narrowly positive follow-up from our side.
Posted by: Matthew at October 12, 2007 6:18 AM
Atheist (me) to Muslims : stop your bloodthirsty "jihad", get civilized and leave the infidels alone, or survival of your evil faith is at stake !
Posted by: Syndic Nuruodo at October 12, 2007 6:32 AM
I find it interesting that the Muslim scholars "forgot" their prophets dying words, as recorded in Hadith,"Kill the Jews and Christians"
Ofcourse all Muslims do not accept certain Hadith,but they cannot deny the Qu'ran.
Surat 9:23 "O you who believe (in Allah and his messenger) Choose not your fahers nor you brethern for friends, if they take pleasure in disbelief rather than faith (in allah and his messenger,Mohammad) Whoso of you takes them for friends are wrong doers"
Surat 5:33 is the penalty for ALL who spread disorder against Allah and his messenger. They shall be "Put them to death or crucified, or have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides or be banished from the country"
Are these learned scholars saying they have deceided to disregard portions of their Quran, or are they saying become Muslim or else? Yes very interesting !!!
Posted by: patts at October 12, 2007 10:49 AM
Pre-conditions to this "peace":
-The basis for this peace ... love of the One God.... Unity of God...that none of us shall take
others for lords beside God...we as Muslims invite Christians to come
together with us on the basis (God here of course refers to Allah)...God Most High tells Muslims to issue the following call to
Christians: that we shall worship none but God, and that we shall ascribe no
partner unto Him
-Islam is
not against them[Christians]—so long as they do not wage war against Muslims on account of their
religion, oppress them and drive them out of their homes
-as Muslims, and in obedience to the Holy Qur’an, we ask Christians to
come together with us on the common essentials of our two religions … that we shall
worship none but God, and that we shall ascribe no partner unto Him, and that none of
us shall take others for lords beside God[Allah]
Thanks Sashfool for making me read 15 pages of worthless nonsense. Again, this is nothing but an avoidance tactic to the Pope's call for Muslims to reject the murderous parts of their ideology.
Posted by: ofcourse at October 12, 2007 11:37 AM
1) 138 scholars or 138,000 scholars, what does it matter? By what authority do these individuals speak for the entire Ummah? In fact, what constitutes the Ummah? And why should these "spokesmen" be taken seriously?
2) 138 scholars representing every sect of Islam... Even those currently slitting each others' throats? So who managed to orchestrate this cooperation between the warring factions and why should Christians or any other non-Moslems seriously consider a blanket offer of peace from those who can't manage it in their own house?
3) As for the "common ground" between the faiths: Assuming that these scholars in fact have a mandate both to cooperate with one another and to treat with Christendom, why don't they take the opportunity to examine wherein the faiths differ, minimally so that they won't appear to be so knuckle-draggingly ignorant when talking about other religions, but more importantly so that they can use their mandate to open Islam to true reform. For the sake of world peace.
at October 12, 2007 11:55 AM
I wonder if anyone noticed, but one of the signatories is Nihad Awad.
Does that name ring a bell ?
Co-chair of CAIR ?
Posted by: Sanwin at October 12, 2007 1:59 PM
Update from the Vatican courtesy of Catholic World News. Full response will probably be available later. The tone suggested in the news blurb isn't quite what we'd like though. I urge everyone to wait and see the full original text before passing judgment...
http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=54122
Posted by: isolde at October 12, 2007 2:09 PM
Actual blurb from the Vatican's Wire Service.
http://212.77.1.245/news_services/press/vis/dinamiche/c2_en.htm
Posted by: isolde at October 12, 2007 2:22 PM
The Vatican’s initial response sounds cautious, but measured with reason:
”Cardinal Tauran said that the next advance in inter-religious dialogue should be an effort to prevent the misuse of religious faith as a pretext for violence. He praised the authors of the Islamic statement for their recognition "that God is One; that God loves us and we must love Him; that God calls us to love our neighbor."It does not appear they have issue, at this early stage, with the Islamic moderates’ invitation to dialogue. Talk is just talk. Whether the Vatican, or other Christian leaders, will dig deeper into the ‘invitation’ for common unity between Christianity and Islam, as commentaries on this forum have, remains unknown. Is this really ‘invitation’ for dialogue, or a push for acceptance of Islam’s tenets defining Christianity? Will the Vatican address 1400 years of Islamic Jihad? Will other faiths be considered, those of the far East, Buddhism and Hinduism, as a common bond of humanity? Will “push them from their homes” be addressed regarding Islam’s claim to any land conquered for Allah that can never revert back to the original occupants, ala Israel? Will these “moderates” accept the existence of Israel?
There is room for dialogue over these issues, especially issues of human rights, gender equality, freddom of conscience, which transcend any scriptural commonalities, real or imagined, between the texts of Islam and Christianity. Will the Vatican leaders, and all Church leaders, really address these issues in a spirit of dialogue? Or will they fear the Islamic reactions to any meaningful dialogue, knowing full well the rage response they can expect from that dysfunctional world? Interesting times we’re in. The only fully functioning nation in the Middle East, and the origin of the Abrahamic faiths, should broker the talks, if this invitation to dialogue is truly sincere. Would the signatories accept this? I wait with bated breath, but not holding it to the point of fainting from surprise.
Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at October 12, 2007 2:35 PM
"I was a preschooler during the worst of the polio epidemics, I would put dimes in those cardboard holders placed in stores for The March of Dimes. I was also learning some songs, like "Jesus Loves the Little Children" and "Jesus Loves Me" I kept asking why so many children had polio. I would see pictures of kids my age trapped in those huge iron lungs. No one, not even my mother, could give me a satisfactory answer. When the Salk vaccine came along, people said that it must be a miracle and their prayers were answered. That era of my life has haunted me ever since, and I never came to grips with it. I avoided polio and every other childhood plague.
When I realized that Islam was an amalgam of Judaism and Christianity cobbled together by Mohammed for less than spiritual reasons, I concluded that all other religions were also man made.
Posted by: Pelayo
Pelayo;
You need to try and open your mind on this matter just a bit more, as your words show how a lack of full understanding can mislead.
God allows this because we allow this. Who is the "prince" of this world? You may be using just what is seen, not what is there in the teachings of the Bible.
Before using islam as a reason to reject all faiths, try to see if islam is warned about from another point of view.
By closing the mind to the narrow view of" islam is the product of a man's thoughts", you may be missing what you may not wish to see.
In no way is this a attack on you, you state your points well, and have no doubt about your ability to think well.
You stated Kay is brillant, as she is. Perhaps what she says should hold more weight for others to fully consider.
Posted by: Islofob IS-1 at October 12, 2007 2:41 PM
From Hugh's ending to his "Fitzgerald: Islam's Trojan Horse, and what to do about it" (http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/018432.php#comments):
"Make sense of what is going on, and tell everyone you know how, and where, with what books and articles and websites, they too -- whatever their disagreements they may have on everything else (faith or lack of it, taxes, global warming, education, abortion, you name it) -- can go and do likewise."
Good advice, let's take it. We can squabble amongst ourselves (without killing each other) when this threat has been dealt with.
at October 12, 2007 4:18 PM
Pelayo -- I too have been thinking about some of your comments towards God and why bad things happen in this world and why some people get sick; and although I understand your point of view, I happen to find your criticism of God to be really immature and short-sighted.
On previous threads you have asked many "why" questions, as you have on this thread. Why would God allow this, and why would God allow that. Polio being the one you mentioned here. Fill in the________.
I have a "why" question for you. Why have you chosen to be cynical towards God when faced with these questions and hardships; while others have chosen to place their "faith" in God when faced with these same questions and adversities?
You mentioned polio on this thread, and even though I have never suffered from that, I do suffer from a disease that requires daily medication. I don't complain to God about my disease and throw my fists in the air and shout, "WHY GOD, WHY ME?!!"
Nor have I thrown my faith out the window because I struggle with this unexpected & undeserving disease, a disease that has no cure; but instead I have put my faith in God's capable hands, the One who created me. But I've chosen to deal with it positively, not negatively. Doesn't mean I enjoy the challenges because I don't, but I don't blame God for what has happened. I've chosen to trust, not complain.
I honestly don't expect a reply from you, because you have dismissed me in the past -- and that's ok -- which is why I am going to take the liberty of answering my own question of you FOR you.
I believe the only difference between you and me (and others like you and me) is "choice". You have chosen to be cynical. You have chosen to doubt God, or even, NOT to believe in a God. You have chosen to blame God. This has been your choice.
Consider making a different choice. It's entirely up to you. Notice I'm not suggesting which choice to make, but it sounds like the cynical ones you've made JUST aren't working for you any more.
Take care.
Posted by: champ at October 12, 2007 4:49 PM
Champ, this article was too interesting to leave right now. I'll come back here at least once or twice more. I don't blame God for anything, because there is probably not one. We can agree that there is no god named Allah, Vishnu, Thor, Jupiter, or Great Spirit for example. A beleiver in Vishnu would be just as perplexed about you as you are about me.
Belief in God is fine, If it brings peace to someone, I'm OK. I have no grudge against God, and I do not believe God has forsaken anyone; I believe that God is the invention of man, just like Allah was the invention of a rather bad man. Also,a group of men came along 2000 + years ago an re-invented God into a kinder, gentler version the God of Moses.
People get sick because they get sick. I and my family have been remarkably free of injury, tragedy, and misfortune. My parents lived into their mid 80s. If anyone would thank God it would be someone like me. You have tremendous faith and courage; that is good, but if something terrible happens to me tomorrow, I am not going to ask God why it happened.
I read a book review of "When Bad Things Happen to Good People" it made me wonder about good things happening to bad people. I observed that misfortune was not selective, it was random and did not favor anyone.
I have seen too many prayers go unanswered to take religion seriously.
There might be a creator, but that's all he would be, that might make me a deist, maybe.
My cynicism is due to the conduct of some people, not some spiritual being.
Islofob IS-1, where did I say Kay was brilliant. Tgusa did, not me.
Posted by: Pelayo at October 12, 2007 5:55 PM
Oops, my 5:55 comments in their entirety are also replies to Islofob IS-1.
Posted by: Pelayo at October 12, 2007 6:23 PM
Pelayo:
OK -- so your cynicism is due to the conduct of some people. Do you mean some people like some Christians? Why do you dislike Christians so much? Have you ever been personally hurt by a Christian? Attacked by a Christian? What? Why so much energy on Christians?
Islam/Muslims I can understand, but why Christians?
Posted by: champ at October 12, 2007 6:53 PM
Pelayo ;
Sorry, I thought it was you who made statement about Kay's posts, I stand corrected.
at October 13, 2007 1:12 AM
Allah “LORD OF THE WORLDS” is found in the bible;
Eph 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the “RULERS OF DARKNESS” of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high [places].
“RULERS OF DARKNESS
Lexicon Results for kosmokratōr (Strong's G2888)
1) Lord of the world, prince of this age
a) The devil and his demons
Who is “LORD OF THE WORLDS”?
ALLAH
Check it out, see how many times
“ALLAH LORD OF THE WORLDS “is in the Quran.
GOD on the BIBLE, not once calls Himself “LORD OF THE WORLDS”.
Because “LORD OF THE WORLDS” is the prince of this age
The devil and his demons,
ALLAH =LORD OF THE WORLDS= DEVIL AND HIS DEMONS
.
Oh yea, Who is the anti-Christ?
1Jo 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist that denieth the Father and the Son
.
I love how Muslims quote the bible out of one side of their mouth, but then out of the other side they say the bible is corrupt.
Christians should answer back with
Apostles creed
I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:
Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into hell.
The third day He arose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy (put your church here)
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.
Amen.
Islam is antiChrist.
at October 13, 2007 2:37 AM
champ, Last comment
C'mon champ that was written as if you have a persecution complex. I don't dislike anybody unless they start insulting me.
Did it ever occur to you that some people doubt God simply on a technical basis? Champ, I am surrounded by Christians, real and fake.
I simply doubt God because there is no proof.
Champ, you do not believe in the Cherokee gods, do you? Thefore, why do you dislike Cherokees so much? Have you ever been personally hurt by a Cherokee? Attacked by a Cherokee? What? Why so much energy on Cherokees? Islam/Muslims I can understand, but why Cherokees?
Do you see just how absolutely in outer space your questions sound?
Posted by: Pelayo at October 13, 2007 3:36 AM
Islofob IS-1, I understand, I've done that myself, there can be so many members on a certain thread, sometimes it is hard to sort them all out.
Posted by: Pelayo at October 13, 2007 3:53 AM
Just one small additional remark:
not only do the Muslims cite their own scripture selectively - those judicious omissions which Robert and Hugh are so good at pointing out - but they also, in this interesting document, make some selective omissions in quoting Christian scripture.
First: they are careful not to draw attention to the fact that the Hebrew and the Christian scriptures do not merely teach in-house love, love of 'brother' or love of 'neighbour', but general beneficence - love of the 'stranger', love even toward 'the enemy' (think of the story from the book of Kings, in which the Assyrian captain Naaman is healed of his leprosy by the Jewish prophet Elishah). Such love across-the-boundaries is, of course, totally absent from Muslim teaching.
I noticed, also, another omission. They cite the first half of a verse from the beatitudes - 'blessed are the peacemakers' but carefully omit the second half, 'FOR THEY SHALL BE CALLED THE CHILDREN OF GOD'. The Muslims simply couldn't repeat that bit: I'll bet it just stuck in their craws.
Because, of course, the Quran contains a verse in which Mohammed/ allah instructs the Muslims how to taunt those awful Jews and Christians who believe themselves to be the beloved children of God. Muslims are told to tell them they are wrong: using arguments that - to a Jew, or a Christian - merely demonstrate allah/ mohammed's absolute ignorance, or else coldly hostile rejection, of what it is that Jews and Christians are on about.
Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at October 13, 2007 4:48 AM
So, deceitful christians, is this your loving religion? Is this kind of peace you offer to muslims.
http://mindprod.com/politics/iraqwarpix.html#IRAQWARPIX
Watch it, watch it if you can, thosa are people you blew up in the name of trinity, in the name of love of your God.
There are hundreds of web sites like this one, go google it! Dare to do it?
Noone threatened you with this offer or order you to convert. Don't convert to Islam! Islam does not need killers like you are!
Once again, watch it...http://mindprod.com/politics/iraqwarpix.html#IRAQWARPIX...you deceitful Christians!
at October 13, 2007 5:50 AM
Islam and Christianity are so similiar and we keep having all these interfaith dialogues and whatnot, yet Christians still get along much better with Buddhists and Hindus who follow very different religions that have nothing at all to do with Christianity, Judaism or Islam. How very strange.
Posted by: Jesus Christ Supercop at October 13, 2007 6:25 AM
Meriemke:
You're sick. And that link you provided is sick, twisted and disgusting.
Only a pervert would think of things like that.
Truly demented.
Posted by: atheling at October 13, 2007 11:11 AM
Meriemke, I followed your second link and found this litle gem in the text:
"The pentagon has been shutting down websites that show pictures and assassinating the newspeople that create them."
It is too stupid for further comment.
Posted by: Pelayo
at October 13, 2007 11:11 AM
Posted by Meriemke:
So, deceitful christians, is this your loving religion? Is this kind of peace you offer to muslims. http://mindprod.com/politics/iraqwarpix.html#IRAQWARPIX
In their religion, so called, the military-political and religious belief is all the same thing. So this sick boy can throw pictures of horror at us as if they were Christian, when they clearly are not. But we can point to Islamic atrocities as clearly due to their religion. Is this the kind of peace Muslims offer us, to kill us for their religion? Sick! His doesn't even deserve comment.
at October 13, 2007 12:55 PM
"I simply doubt God because there is no proof."
Romans 1:18-21,25:
"According to the Bible, unbelievers suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world, His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understoed by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their though's… and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator."
Study this:
http://www.creationism.org/csshs/v12n4p03.htm
at October 13, 2007 1:19 PM
A preceding poster, with apparently Islamic sympathies, presents this thread with both pictures of warfare and sprays of invective. This is interesting, happening on this particular thread. It goes back to the question: Who do the 138 scholars presume to speak for? And what insight do they have into cultures and religions other than Islam that would help them in making genuine progress in any dialogue, particularly in reaching the hearts and minds of people like the recent poster? What can they do to improve the capability of Moslems to reflect upon their actions, to develop real consciences, and to be more circumspect in their projections upon the motives of others.
Or maybe no number of scholars will ever succeed in reaching such individuals. Ever.
Posted by: Chatillon at October 13, 2007 3:33 PM
So Meriemke you want America to leave Iraq. I suppose you are a Sunni then. But what will happen to Mecca and Medina if America leaves Iraq?
Will the Sunnis tolerate the Shiites next door gaining power?
Will Turkey confront the Kurds in Iraq?
What will happen to Afghanistan if the West pulls out?
In all instances just plain old Christian morals getting in the way of Islamic chaos. But don't let that get in your way of believing Christian infidels must die; you believe in the Islamic ideology after all.
Posted by: ofcourse at October 13, 2007 4:54 PM
Champ
Citing Romans 1:20 and other passages is not going to work for me. It sounds like the "It's in the Bible so it must be true" argument.
Here's the other argument: The universe and life itself is too complicated and we cannot possibly understand how life began; therefore the universe and life must have been created by a spiritual being.
Every religion has a creation story attached. There are many, many sites that contain the creation story of the particular religion.
Here's one
http://www.painsley.org.uk/re/signposts/Y7/2-2Hinduism/hindu_creation_story.htm
Posted by: Pelayo at October 13, 2007 4:59 PM
battle of tours - you're right: "Muslims are unable to differentiate between political-military actions and religion".
The evidence of the difference between the Christian world and the Muslim world is in the difference between the addressees, and the writers/ signatories, of the letter that we are discussing.
Reflect on the list of church leaders to whom the Muslim letter is addressed. How many of those people hold, or have held, political office in the countries of which they are citizens? So far as I can see, none.
Now, look through the list of Muslims who signed their names to that letter. Do you notice a pattern? Quite a few of them have been judges in Islamic courts. Quite a few hold, or have held, political office.
See, for instance, this one:
H.E. Prof. Dr. Allamah Shaykh Abd Allah bin Mahfuz bin Bayyah:
Professor, King Abdul Aziz University, Saudi Arabia; Former Minister of Justice, Former Minister of Education and Former Minister of Religious Affairs, Mauritania. Or this one: H.E. Prof. Dr. Shakir Al-Fahham, Head of the Arabic Language Academy, Damascus; Former Minister of Education [= Propaganda?], Syria.
at October 13, 2007 5:10 PM
Since when did this war become a "Chrisianity vs islam war" in the first place?
Last I saw, it was the Global War on Terror.
Can anyone explain that to me?
Regardless, it should be viewed in that light because islam has been at war with every non-muslims since islams inception.
at October 13, 2007 6:05 PM
JeepThang:
"Since when did this war become a "Chrisianity vs islam war" in the first place?"
Back in the 7th century, that's when.
This is not a new war. To steal Gates of Vienna's statement, "We are in a new phase of a very old war".
Posted by: atheling at October 13, 2007 6:46 PM
You disappointment me, Pelayo, I was hoping for the Cherokee creation story...end of story....
Posted by: champ at October 13, 2007 8:38 PM
Pelayo,
I always thought you were a Catholic from reading some of your posts. How strange.
Here is an interesting story, with a lot of witnesses, that attests to the power and existence of God and other creatures that we all learned about in Catechism or Bible classes.
http://www.saint-mike.org/spcdc/library/begonesatan.asp
See what you can make of it.
Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at October 13, 2007 9:24 PM
Isabellathecrusader, You ain't the first person to say something like that, you're just first person to say it on an internet forum. On or about Sept. 11, 2001, after 50 + years of waffling on the subject of religious truth, I decided there was no religious truth. I finally realized that the possibility of religion being a man made concept outweighed the possibility that God really existed. I may have confused some people because I believe that Jesus brought rationality to religion. Jesus may have been an obscure evangalist, or he may have been a peson invented by Jewish reformers as someone to be believed, but the Jesus story rang true; it was what people wanted hear. The vengeful God of Moses was replaced by the loving God of the New Testament.
I may sound like a religious person because I respect the modern version of Christianity, and once upon a time (pre 1967) condidered myself a rather devout Methodist.
In my opinion, The most important thing that the sayings attributed to Jesus taught me was the idea that humans are not allowed to judge and punish people for religious transgressions. And it was Jesus who first brought up the concept of the separation of government and religion.
Posted by: Pelayo at October 13, 2007 11:45 PM
Isabella, to me the most baffling story was about Jusus casting demons into a herd of pigs. I'm certain the owner of the pigs was not very happy.
Do not underestimate the power of suggestion, and do not rule out the possibility of psychosomatic problems. Consult with your minister, but don't forget to see a doctor.
Posted by: Pelayo at October 13, 2007 11:53 PM
"I believe that Jesus brought rationality to religion."
Bingo, Pelayo. That's because God is rational. And thus we see the difference between Islam and Christianity. Islam believes that Allah is beyond reason, therefore, Islam is irrational. The Christian God, the God of Abraham and Moses, is not beyond reason, for all reason comes from Him.
I offer you St. Thomas Aquinas' Five Proofs for the Existence of God:
Aquinas’ first proof is through the argument of motion. It can be noted that some things in the universe are in motion and it follows that whatever is in the state of motion must have been placed in motion by another such act. Motion in itself is nothing less then the reduction of something from the state of potentiality to actuality. Because something can not be in potentiality and actuality simultaneously, it follows that something can not be a mover of itself. A simple example of this is a rubber ball motionless on a flat surface. It has the potential for motion, but is not currently in the state of actual motion. In order for this to happen, something else in motion must set the ball in motion, be that gravity, another moving object or the wind. And yet something must have set that object in motion as well (even gravity, a force caused by matter warping the space-time fabric, attributes its existence to pre-existing matter and the exchange of pre-existing graviton particles). Thus pre-existing motions cause all motions. Yet, this chain can not extend into infinity because that would deny a first mover that set all else in motion. Without a first mover, nothing could be set in motion. Thus we acknowledge the first and primary mover as God.
The second proof follows closely with the first and expounds the principle of causality. St. Thomas explains that in the world of sense there is an order of causes and effects. There is a cause for all things such as the existence of a clock. And nothing can cause itself into existence. A clock cannot will itself into existence, it must be created and caused into existence by something else. A clockmaker creates a clock and causes its existence, and yet the material of the clock and the clockmaker did not cause themselves to exist. Something else must have caused their existence. All things can attribute their existence to a first cause that began all causes and all things. We call this first cause God.
Aquinas next explains that things of this universe have a transitory nature in which they are generated and then corrupt over time. Because of this the things of nature can be said to be "possible to be and possible not to be". Since it is impossible for these things always to exist, then it indicates a time when they did not exist. If there are things which are transitory (and are possible not to be) then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. However, as was already explained in his second proof, there must have been a first cause that was not of transitory nature that could have generated the beginning of nature.
In his fourth point Aquinas notes that there is a certain gradation in all things. For instance we can group things that are hot according to varying degrees of the amount of heat perceptible in that object. In classifying objects there is always something which displays the maximum fullness of that characteristic. Thus universal qualities in man such as justice and goodness must attribute their varying qualities to God; the source of maximum and perfect justice and goodness.
Finally, Thomas Aquinas says that the order of nature presupposes a higher plan in creation. The laws governing the universe presuppose a universal legislature who authored the order of the universe. We cannot say that chance creates order in the universe. If you drop a cup on the floor it shatters into bits and has become disordered. But if you were to drop bits of the cup, they would not assemble together into a cup. This is an example of the inherent disorder prevalent in the universe when things are left to chance. The existence of order and natural laws presupposes a divine intelligence who authored the universe into being.
Posted by: atheling at October 14, 2007 4:03 AM
Regarding the suffering and sickness in this world:
"So where is this supremely good, personal and just God in our world? Why so much misery and suffering? This is a fundamental mystery for which human reason cannot fully explain. Although we can reasonably conclude to the existence of God we cannot hope to fully fathom the infinite and divine intellect of our creator with finite human minds.
However, we can reason that God has decided to endow us with free will, a tremendous gift that gives humans the freedom to choose between love of God and hatred of him. We can choose between good and evil. So why did he decide to give us the freedom to choose evil? It is enough to say that God created us as human beings and not as preprogrammed robots. In his infinite goodness he desired the free love of humanity over forced obedience to his will. For love cannot be forced, it must be given by desire and choice.
Because of our free will, some people have embraced evil and selfishness to satiate themselves at the expense of others. True evil is a result of desire of oneself over that of God, and thus sin and evil is a rejection of God. Because God is of infinite perfection, beatitude, and justice, he cannot allow sin to go unpunished. Neither can he allow sinful people to embrace him in his fullness in heaven. Thus our world, tainted by sin, is racked with much sadness and suffering. Sin separates us from the all-pleasing and loving God.
As emphasized before, the simultaneous existence of good and evil is a mystery to human intelligence, but it in no way proves that God does not exist. It only points to our own finite and limited existence. Our God is infinitely good and just, and thus as the source of our lives we are created to be his friends and children. We are called to live in goodness and justice as a response to our love of God. God loves us, but it is up to us to return his love."
Posted by: atheling at October 14, 2007 4:21 AM
How can there be common cause with a religion which calls for the destruction of anyone who is not Muslim, are they just stalling for time...??? time until their numbers have grown to a fighting force in the lands of the infidel???
Are they not to keep quite until the numbers have grown enough to become a force...
I have heard that they bring out a Muslim woman set her up in a home and marry her, have a couple of children to her then divorce her, then bring out another one and do the same until they have 4 wives, of which he is married to under Sharia law. He of course visits his children in each home sometimes leaving another to be born while we the stupid infidel pay for the solo mums all the while he collects all the solo benefits off these children..
It means he doesn't have to work he is earning so much money from the many children to each wife.. we are giving them money to breed an army to come against us.. Has anyone else heard this????
at October 14, 2007 7:03 AM
Hi everyone,
Just like to say that I agree that these Muslim scholars aren't addressing the issue which the Pope asked them to, namely, will they reject the violence which Islam preaches? Instead they are asking us to reinforce their belief system!
Kudos to everyone who pointed out that the Muslim definition of "one God" is completely different from the Christian definition.
Also, the response from the Vatican is not capitulation. Quoting from the Vatican's Wire Service -- "Muslims and Christians must respond to one question: in your life, is God truly One?" -- quite the question, isn't it?
I believe that the Vatican is preparing to challenge Islam on theological grounds. If Islam is an extension of Judaiism and Christianity, where does it logically lead to? That if in Judaiism (and I'm no scholar) God was a vengeful father-figure, then in Christianity God became a benevolent father-figure, is it logical that in Islam God should be a bloodthirsty warlord? Would it not be more logical that God become a patient grandfather figure?
Thanks for letting me share these thoughts.
at October 14, 2007 5:52 PM
RedSkyatNight,
Welcome and thanks for your thoughts.
Pelayo,
'Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I have a child with eight hours worth of homework on the computer for classes due tomorrow and we were gone most of the day.
You said:
"Isabella, to me the most baffling story was about Jesus casting demons into a herd of pigs. I'm certain the owner of the pigs was not very happy.
Do not underestimate the power of suggestion, and do not rule out the possibility of psychosomatic problems. Consult with your minister, but don't forget to see a doctor."
I've often wondered about that story about Jesus casting the demons into the herd of pigs. It just so happens, (as often happens in my life, and as Fr. Leo Celano says, nothing happens by chance,) that I am presently reading a book by Fr. Gabriele Amorth entitled "An Exorcist Tells His Story" which answers those questions that you've put forth. Fr. Amorth is the #1 exorcist for the Vatican and has had many years of experience in casting out evil spirits from the people who are possessed and obsessed by them.
Fr. Amorth addresses the issue of demons being cast into animals when they are cast out of a human being. According to Fr. Amorth and also other exorcists I've read about, the evil spirits do not want to give up their home because their suffering as a disobedient fallen angel or a person who is damned, both of which have the ability to possess a person, is lessened for the time being (before the final judgment) by possessing someone. That's why there are stories in the New Testament where the demons ask not to be bothered by Our Lord because it is not yet their time. They know that at the end of time they will be chained in hell forever but God has allowed them to roam the earth until that time comes. They asked Jesus to cast them into the pigs because they suffer less while they possess someone or something, rather than being cast into hell where their suffering increases in equal measure to the amount of suffering they've caused on earth. Even though they know this they continue to wreak havoc as long as they walk the earth. By going into the pigs they receive some alleviation from their future destiny.
As far as consulting a doctor rather than a minister, it's funny you should say that because Fr. Amorth talks at length about people who have physical symptoms seeking help from a medical professional and receiving no relief because there is no organic cause for their illness. Fr. Amorth has had experience with many, many individuals in Europe who are ill and can't seem to heal who have been completely cured after he's administered the rite of exorcism. He describes the two areas in the body that are most effected, i.e., the head and the stomach, having a particular susceptibility to demonic activity. He has had great success in healing people with problems in those areas.
Fr. Amorth also touches on the problem of psychiatric illnesses and explains that those problems are not healed by exorcism when the patient truly has legitimate mental issues. Fr. Amorth sometimes works in conjunction with psychiatrists when working to treat someone who is ill, so he's not above it. He just seeks to help people to be healed.
Another thing that was interesting is that Fr. Amorth says that Confession and Communion are more powerful than an exorcism at casting out demons. That makes sense to me because when we humbly confess our sins in the Sacrament of Penance, and receive Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament, great graces are given to us to be able to handle situations that might seem unbearable otherwise.
Pelayo, I would submit to you that as a Methodist you did not have access to these spiritual aids. Also, as a Catholic I read about the lives of the saints every single day because we are taught that the saint of any given day, i.e., the feast day of a particular saint, and there is one or more for every day of the year, has special powers to intercede for those of us that honor them on that day because they are precious to Our Lord because they gave their lives in His service. When I read the stories of the lives of the saints and how what they went through to stay faithful to Our Lord, I come to believe that I could do that too. After all, they were ordinary people just like you and me, but they had an extraordinary love for Jesus Christ and that helped them to rise above any pain and any opposition in their quest to honor Him and get to Him in heaven. This is different than the Muslims desire to die for Allah so they can get laid for all eternity, which is really a selfish and self serving goal. No, the saints sought to do God's will in all things and please Him by being good and doing good things to help their fellow man. I can think of so many examples off the top of my head like St. Isaac Jogues (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08420b.htm) who was martyred bringing the faith to the North American Indians, or Mother Frances Cabrini, (http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/CABRINI.HTM and http://cabrinischool.org/our_namesake.htm) who came to America from Italy in 1889 with not a penny to her name, but when she died in the early 1900's she had established over a hundred schools, orphanages, hospitals and other places to help the people all up and down the east coast, in California and Seattle and in South America. There was St. Therese of the Little Flower of Jesus who died when she was 25 years old about 100 years ago, but she taught all the people around her how you could become a saint just by doing little things, but doing them well, for the love of Jesus. http://www.littleflower.org/learn/littleflower.asp
I have always sensed your respect in your posts toward Christianity. Perhaps you are a Catholic at heart and don't know it yet. ; ) I encourage you to look into the links I've provided and see if these people were deludenoids or if there was something to their faith. I mean, why would Mother Cabrini come all the way to America with no money but then establish all these places and services to help other people if there wasn't some sort of reward or some sort of goal she was trying to attain. In other words, what was in it for her? She never got rich, she never enjoyed sex. Like Mother Teresa, her life was about service to others, not about serving herself. Wouldn't there be something or Someone behind a life like that, especially when they both did the things they did in spite of the difficulties they encountered and created legacies that were truly amazing and seemed to be beyond what could be done by an average human being?
I've always liked you Pelayo. If I can help you or put your mind at ease on this subject, you only have to ask.
Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at October 15, 2007 12:07 AM
Isabella - if you revisit this discussion - this is just to let you know that this Friday I will be sitting down with a printout of that Letter from the Mohammedans to the Christians. I will be praying by name for every one of the addressees - from Pope Benedict on down through the list - and I will also be naming before the LORD each of those 138 Muslim 'scholars' who have signed their names, asking Him to 'Do Something!!'.
I'm mentioning this just in case the idea has not already occurred to other Christians among the regulars, or the visitors, here.
at October 16, 2007 2:32 AM
Dumbledore,
Excellent idea! I am really thrilled that you brought this up because for a long time now I've been resigned to the fact that we are going to have to pray and pray a lot if we want to dislodge Islam from the Muslims and from this earth. I thought I was going to have to do it by myself, which seems insurmountable sometimes, but to hear you say, let's do it together, is a comfort to my weary heart.
I've been praying in many different ways lately,on top of praying my daily Rosary. Yesterday at my church my daughter and I spent an hour before the Blessed Sacrament as part of the 40 hours devotion. I've also prayed novenas in the past month that have brought forth a lot of fruit and I always pray for Abdullah, Naseem and Defender of Islam during the Consecration of the Mass. I've noticed they haven't been around so much which leads me to believe there is something going on in their lives and I believe it is for the good.
Praying for each of the Muslims mentioned in the letter is a great way to help them overcome Islam and to help us weaken their resolve to destroy us and their attachment to that belief system. This reminds me of times when the saints were imprisoned in Rome and they would convert their jailers to Christianity because of their prayers and example.
We also should pray for the Christian leaders mentioned above, that they will be strengthened and will do the right thing when it comes to honoring God and speaking the truth about the malice and danger of Islam.
I will join you this Friday. Thanks for the suggestion. God bless you, too.
Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at October 16, 2007 11:46 AM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)