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 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

Posted by: Catherine 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.

Posted by: Borg 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

Posted by: Stinkyinfidel 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"

Posted by: savitch 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.

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader 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.

Posted by: pr126 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."

Posted by: Daffersd 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! )

Posted by: crusader rabbit 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.

Posted by: Battle_of_Tours 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----------------------------------

Posted by: CTYankee 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.

Posted by: waltc 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!

Posted by: descendantofacrusader 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

Posted by: gaelen 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.

Posted by: Stinkyinfidel 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.

Posted by: FredIsinglass 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.

Posted by: Clay Marley 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

Posted by: champ 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".

Posted by: RalphInfidel 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.

Posted by: DP111 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?

Posted by: Chatillon 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.

Posted by: the poetess 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.

Posted by: lkrause 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.

Posted by: unicorns62000 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.

Posted by: DP111 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

Posted by: jcom972 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.

Posted by: jewdog 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

Posted by: Mackie 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

Posted by: interestinconundrum 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 st