“the future of the world depends on peace between Muslims and Christians...”

But only if the Christians cease to be Christians and only if we accept the definition of peace as being subjected to total mind, body and spiritual control. Thanks, but no thanks.

Posted by: Isabellathecrusader at October 22, 2007 8:41 AM

The letter is nothing more then the standard offer of conversion, subjugation or death with some nice dash of Taqqiya for the PC BS Multi-culture 5th columnist to use against us. Also know as divide and conquer.

Seems King Ferdinand II of Aragon and Queen Isabella of Castille were down right enlightened for they policies on Islamic expansionism and its’ methods. They are especially enlightened when compared to today's crop of corrupt self-serving PS BS political hacks that are currently in power in the Western Democracies.

Posted by: senor doeboy at October 22, 2007 8:41 AM

“the future of the world depends on peace between Muslims and Christians...”

As long as the latter roll over and die or surrender

maybe a return letter should simply read

“the future of the world depends on .......................Christians........................
to shout from the rooftops till its heard that Islam is simply a death cult seeking to lay claim to the globe and must be defeated on every level..............Cue non PC Papal announcement sending out a clear message, followed by a Queen's speech this year that will free the entire west to deal with this scourge as is befitting"

then we'll get down to it with them, and the future is brighter

Posted by: Taranus at October 22, 2007 9:16 AM

Re: “Muslims,” he said, “do not accept that one can discuss the Qur'an in depth, because they say it was written by dictation from God. With such an absolute interpretation, it is difficult to discuss the contents of faith.”
__________________________________________________

Yes, exactly! This is definitely the greatest barrier to dialogue with Muslims.

Because Muslims view the Qur'an as a dictation from God through the angel Gabriel (See Qur’an 10:15, 37; 56:77-79; 69:44-48; 85:21-22) Muslims consider it blasphemous to critique the content of the Qur'an and insist that Muhammad's teachings are indefectible.

In case you didn't know it,

the Qur’an teaches hand amputation for petty theft (Qur’an 5:38), that a man can own and have sex with slave girls (2:221; 4:3, 24-28; 23:5-6; 33:50-52; 70:30), allows child marriages (65:4-5) and calls for war to be made on Jews and Christians until they are either defeated or subjected to humiliating lowliness (9:29).

The Qur’an has many miscellaneous scientific errors on a number of different issues.

Qur’an 2:261 tells us that every ear of corn has 100 grains. This has not been proven scientifically and is more than obviously false. It brings into question the scientific accuracy of the Qur’an and whether the Qur’an is really addressing scientific issues.

Qur’an 27:18, tells the story of a talking ant in the time of King Solomon. Ants do not communicates with words, but with scent and smell, etc. This is a scientific error, regarding nature.

In the Hadith (traditions of what Muhammad said and did), we find more. We are told that stones talked to Muhammad (Bukhari 1, p. vii), that food talked to Muhammad while he was eating it (Bukhari 4:779) and a tree cried because Muhammad would not preach near it (Bukhari 2:41; 4:783). After Muhammad comforted the tree, it stopped crying (ibid). For this to be true, stones, trees and food would have to have at least lungs, a respiratory system, vocal cords and a tongue. One has to wonder if you could be more absurd than this?

The Qur’an 5:6, says that if there is no water to clean oneself with, you should use sand as a substitute for water. Firstly this is very unhygienic, since sand is full of dust and is unclean. Even if the God of the Qur’an had not been addressing scientific issues, one would wonder why he would not know that sand is unhygienic and dangerous for one's health, thus warning them against it.

In a debate against Christianity, Islamic apologist, Ahmed Deedat asserted that Muslims were the most hygienic people on earth. Perhaps they are today, but their founder was not, and should be considered neither a role model nor an example of being hygienic.

Muhammad said that camel's urine should be drank as medicine for those who are feeling sick (Bukhari 1:234). He sometimes spat on his clothes (1:242). He let people catch his own spit and then rub it on their faces and skin (3:891). To someone else, he ejected a mouthful of water on them (1:188). After washing himself, Muhammad would give his dirty water to his followers to drink and smear themselves with (1:187-188).

The Qur’an 86:6-7 says that semen comes from between a man's backbone and ribs. We know today from biology studies that semen comes from the male genitalia, so once again, a very inaccurate statement coming from the Qur’an.

The Qur’an also contains scientific anachronisms of longevity. The Qur’an 18:25 tells the story of some men who slept in a cave for 309 years. Why they did not die very soon due to dehydration and lack of sunlight is not explained.

The Qur’an 20:53, talks of God who has, "...made the earth for you like a carpet spread out..." (see also 71:19). This could hardly be a clearer way of describing the earth as flat. The Qur’an repeatedly refers to how the earth is "wide" or "spread out" (Qur’an 13:3; 15:19; 18:7; 19:6; 21:30; 35:40; 41:10; 43:10; 50:7; 51:48; 55:10; 78:6; 79:30; 88:20), which is not the language used to describe a round sphere.

The Qur’an talks of the earth in terms as if it were stationary, with the sun and stars moving around the earth (Qur’an 2:258; 21:33; 36:40; 52:49; 53:1). "It is he who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon: all (celestial bodies) swim along, each in it's rounded course" (21:33). We know today that the sun is far bigger than the earth, and is drawing the round earth in it's orbit.

The flat-earth concept is seen in the fact that Muslims have to pray five times a day facing Mecca. To pray with you back to Mecca, would be sacrilegious. They are not allowed to even go to the toilet facing Mecca, either (Bukhari 1:146-151). From a flat-earth viewpoint, this makes sense. But we know today, being on a spherical globe, that if you pray facing Mecca, you have your back to Mecca at the same time (and vice-versa).

We are also told that when Muhammad saw the mountain of Uhud, he said, "This is the mountain that loves and is loved by us" (Bukhari 9:433). Muhammad taught that mountains have feelings, emotions and personality. We know today that they are dead, senseless rock and mineral formations pushed up through continental drift and shaped often by volcanoes.

The Qur’an says that moon was cut in half (54:1). The Hadith confirms this fairytale, by repeatedly telling us that Muhammad cut the moon in half (Bukhari 4:830-832; 5:208-211; 6:387-390). How Muhammad actually did this, we are not told. Why no one else in the world saw it we are not told. How he managed to cut through hundreds of miles of solid rock we are not told. How it put it together again, we are not told. Personally, I find it easier to believe that a cow jumped over the moon.

Read it all in this website from Bible and science:
http://www.bibleandscience.com/science/quran.htm

Posted by: Johnathan at October 22, 2007 9:31 AM

I am glad some people saw through this charade of the muslims. these muslims are basiclly saying that "whats mine is mine and whats yours is negotiable." Its like opening a discussion with a person as long as the other person first admits that you are absolutly correct.

Posted by: desidude at October 22, 2007 9:31 AM

It's well worth reading the Reuters article linked in the original article.

The usual MSM tosh of course, but for this wonderful slip of the fingers about two-thirds of the way down.

It was unprecedented because Islam has no central authority to speak for all believers, especially not the silent minority that does not agree with radicals whose preaching of jihad

I had to reread it several times to make sure I wasn't seeing things...:)

Posted by: thomas ato at October 22, 2007 9:59 AM

Well, when a muslim says peace they only mean one of three things - death, conversion to islam, or dhimmitude. So, after reading about some more Christians murdered in islamic lands... that should tell us a lot about a muslim's idea of peace. Those Christians met the 'muslim scholars' first idea of peace.

"138 Muslim scholars"

Posted by: R_not at October 22, 2007 10:37 AM

Mohammed was a sufferer of temporal lobe epilepsy, and schizophrenia, (and a malignant narcissist, to boot).

Such a person might experience auditory and visual hallucinations, and believe in talking inanimate objects.

This is ironic. As animist cultures regard all things as living (as did Mohammed), they're not accepted by Mohammedenists, in any way. They will not be given the dubious privilege of living under dimmitude, according to the Qur'an.

Most ironic of all is that sane people followed this madman, rendering themselves and future generations insane.

Posted by: Abscedere at October 22, 2007 10:44 AM

"The letter is nothing more then the standard offer of conversion, subjugation or death with some nice dash of Taqqiya for the PC BS Multi-culture 5th columnist to use against us. Also know as divide and conquer."

I almost forgot this 'little' thing about muslims/koran. They do this before their outright declaration of a jihad. So, I guess we can expect something to happen (or just more of the same if one is keeping abreast of the situation around this globe) against Christians, with the possibility of that something happening in Rome.

Posted by: R_not at October 22, 2007 10:50 AM

Since Christians (and Jews) will never accept the authenticity of the Quran and since Muslims will never accept the authenticity of the "Book," the best hope is for these factions to begin their dialogue with something universal and basic to all humanity -- such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. All members of the United Nations have endorsed this document (although subsequently the members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference created and approved their own "Islamic" Declaration of Human Rights).

So, if the 138 Islamic scholars are looking for a "common word" between us, try the word "universal" and let's see where it takes us. If, on the other hand, they only intend to subordinate other religions to their own "supreme" belief system, then there is no common ground for dialogue.

Posted by: Chris at October 22, 2007 11:18 AM

138 muslim scholars of BS.
Until the koran and surahs can be parsed even semi-critically, there can be no common ground for meaningful discussion.

Posted by: tsarbomba29 at October 22, 2007 12:30 PM

May as well have read:

"Dear chief of your infidelic apes and pigs:
durka durka muhamma-jihad, sherp sherpa sherka, bakah-lah!
peace peace peace!
kill all infidels!
peace peace peace!
peace this
peace that...
After all...all we want is peace!

uh-HUH...(reviewing the definition)
NORMAL version: peace- absence of armed conflict
nazi version- lack of resistance by us untermenschen
commie version-lack of opposition to socialism
PC version- lack of opposition to political correctness
islamist version-lack of resistance to islam

I distinctly remember the same kind of "enlightening" entrails from some others named saburo kurusu & kichisaburo nomura...in November 1941...all THEY "wanted" was "peace", too.

I feel so much better now.

Posted by: jcom972 at October 22, 2007 1:04 PM

Chris wrote:

...begin their dialogue with something universal and basic to all humanity -- such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. All members of the United Nations have endorsed this document (although subsequently the members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference created and approved their own "Islamic" Declaration of Human Rights).
....................

Chris, I know you are very well-meaning, and I do not mean to be critical. The Islamic Declaration of Human Rights, unfortunately, directly negates many human rights:

XII Right to Freedom of Belief, Thought and Speech

a) Every person has the right to express his thoughts and beliefs so long as he remains within the limits prescribed by the Law. No one, however, is entitled to disseminate falsehood or to circulate reports which may outrage public decency, or to indulge in slander, innuendo or to cast defamatory aspersions on other persons.
.......

Basically, this means in practice that it is difficult or impossible to practice a faith other than Islam in Muslim lands. The mere presence of a church or temple may "outrage public decency". The profession of any creed other than Islam may consitute, as they see it, "disseminating falsehood". "The Law", of course, is Shari'ah law--with its draconian strictures and Medieval punishments.

Here we have Freedom of Speech:

d) There shall be no bar on the dissemination of information provided it does not endanger the security of the society or the state and is confined within the limits imposed by the Law.
........

Pretty easy to ban *anything* under these strictures--preaching by other religions, criticism of Islam (including things like the Danish Muhammed cartoons), and even an open discussion of politics or social policy.

You also mention the word "Universal"--many use this word in the sense of applying to every human. I think you would find that many of the signers of the letter to the Pope would rather use "universal" to refer to the Ummah--the community of Muslims, and use a different standard entirely when it comes to Infidels.

Posted by: gravenimage at October 22, 2007 1:14 PM

Wait--Did the check with the World Zionist Conspiracy? Interestingly, they seem to be trying to imitate the technique used so successfullly to take over the Byzantine Empire. Make the Christians think they can make common cause with Muslims--by the time they realized what was happening it was too late. (I have hope that Christians won't be taken in this time. Christian, especially Catholic, anti-semitism is a thing of the past to a large extent.)

Posted by: duvimom at October 22, 2007 1:40 PM

R_Not Said: I almost forgot this 'little' thing about muslims/koran. They do this before their outright declaration of a jihad. So, I guess we can expect something to happen (or just more of the same if one is keeping abreast of the situation around this globe) against Christians, with the possibility of that something happening in Rome.

That was my first thought when the letter was originally published. The Koranic requirement of offering the infidels to convert or accept dhimmitude before killing them.

Posted by: walterc at October 22, 2007 1:48 PM

Any olive branch offered by Muslims to únbelievers' is almost certainly intended to be used as a battering ram by Islam later.

Posted by: pythagoras at October 22, 2007 1:55 PM

They might point out a signatory and perhaps author of this letter, Dr. Muhammad al-Buti, has contradicted most of its contents in his own work.
He has repeadedly used the term "Holy War" for Jihad, though the letter denies such a thing, he has described the method and aims of Jihad in perfect accord with Robert Spencer.

"Holy War, as it is known in Islamic
Jurisprudence, is basically an offensive war. This is the duty of Muslims in every age when the needed military power becomes available to them...thus the Apostle of God said 'I was commanded to fight the people until they believe in God and his message."
--"Jurisprudence in Muhammad’s Biography",
Dr. Muhammad Sa’id Ramadan al-Buti (page 134, 7th
edition).

The scholars left out so much regarding Islam's attitude toward Christians. That they are blasphemers, that they are cursed. Or these:

4:159 "(On the Day of Resurrection) 'Isa (Jesus)
himself will be a witness against Jews &
Christians for believing in his death.... Allah will taunt Christians on the day of their doom, saying 'Where are my partners whom ye imagined?'" 78:62-64
From the Bukhari hadith: "Allah's Apostle said, how will you be when the son of Mary (Jesus) descends among you and will judge people by the law of the Qur'an and not by the law of the Gospel?" V4B60n3449

Islam foretells the return of Jesus. To destroy Christianity! "By Him in whose hands my soul is, surely (Isa) the son of Mary will soon descend amongst you and will judge mankind, justly he will break the Cross and kill the pigs and
there will be no Jizya." (Ending the Jizya means
ending the protection enjoyed by Christians, it announces open-season on them).

Did the scholars miss 5:51? "Take not the Jews or
Christians for your friends or protectors,
they are but friends and protectors to each other. He among you who turns to them for friendship is of them." This is a foundation for peaceful, friendly relations? 3:28 "Let believers not take disbelievers for friends...guard yourself against them, taking
security".

2:120 "Jews will not be pleased with you, nor the
Christians, until you follow their religion."
More explicitly: 4:101 " for the unbelievers are open enemies to you."

"But as for those who disbelieve, garments of fire
will be cut out for them; boiling fluid will be poured down on their heads (22:19); "Fight the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you" (9:123) "I will throw fear into the hearts of those who disbelieve, smite the necks and smite of them each finger" (8:12). (3:85) "If anyone of you desires a religion other than Islam it will never be accepted of him." Finally, Qur'an 9:29: and this permanent state of war with Christians needs to be explained by the
learned scholars. After all, it might conceivably be an obstacle to peace, harmony and mutual goodwill!

The intent of the Jizya, set out in verse 9:29,is described in the commentary by ibn Kathir: "with willing submission in defeat and subservience and feel themselves subdued, disgraced, humiliated and belittled" (in return for letting People of the Book live);

and in Jalaluddin Suyuti: "this is the basis for accepting Jizya from the People of the Book, a state of abasement. Al-Maghira told Rustam 'I call you to Islam or else you must pay the jizya while you are in a state of abasement.' He said 'What does a state of abasement
mean?' He replied 'You pay it while you are standing & I am sitting and the whip is hanging over your head.' "

More ibn Kathir : "until they pay the Jizya" means
that this is done if they don't convert to Islam;
"with submission" means that they are forced to pay and should be downcast...reviled, disgraced
& debased...the People of the Book are despicable,
lowly & rebellious." The People of the Book are despicable, lowly and rebellious!
This is the Qur'anic judgment of its most prestigious commentator, ibn Kathir. I don't remember reading this in the letter to the Pope.

Posted by: Nick Danger at October 22, 2007 3:16 PM

lol...
"al-Buti" (pronounced (?): "al-booty")
(/sarc)
Makes ya wonder if they realize how some of their names sound like some sort of bizarre fetish...lol
Thanks for bringing that up...ya just got a lot of laughs over here.

Next message I suppose will come from al-Mix.A.Lot(?)
http://www.drfsupercenter.info/Music/Baby%20Got%20Back%20tro%202.mp3
lol

Posted by: jcom972 at October 22, 2007 3:35 PM

It would be great if the Vatican would FIRST educate their own Priests and congregations on the same subject.

There is alot of misunderstanding going on in the Catholic congregations because there is not a clear message coming from the Priest or the Vatican.

We can argue until we are blue in the face with Islam, they are not going to get it. But if we (the free world) get it, then Islam will have a harder time decieving us and gaining ground.

The Vatican has controll of vast amounts of people and they are doing nothing with it.

Posted by: alaskan1000 at October 22, 2007 4:32 PM

Please, Mr Spencer -
I've said this before but I'll say it again. Write the letter that YOU would write, if His Holiness gave you the job of replying to the Muslims on behalf of Catholics everywhere. And post it here so we can all read it. And those of us - not only Catholics, either! - who feel that you speak for us, will email you with our names and countries and churches so you can add us as 'voices from the pew'. And send it to at least some of the church leaders who got the Muslims' letter, so they know what some of their parishioners would like them to say.

And Nick Danger - I think a thorough investigation into the antecedents and published/ recorded utterances of most of the other signatories to that Letter from the Mohammedans, would reveal similarly disturbing material. Thanks for doing the job on Muhammad al-Buti and sharing your findings here for the rest of us. By the way, if you're associated with a church, have a look and see whether the top person for your denomination is on the list of addressees. If so: send him a polite letter, citing all the utterances of Mr Al-Buti that you've quoted here, so he knows exactly what he is dealing with.

Myself, I had a look at one of the other signatories, Dr Mohammed Salim al-'Awa: if you google his name and MEMRI you find out that in 1998 he said: 'I believe it is the duty of Muslims to act in all possible ways in order to obtain WMD'. Very peaceful, eh? Do you think that ANY of the Christian addressees has ever said anything like that?

Another signatory, Dr Zaghloul al-Naggar, has 22 MEMRI references. One of them as follows: on 2.4.2006 he told Saudi Iqra TV that "Israel has to be demolished".

Another one, Dr Ikrima Said Sabri, promulgated the usual conspiracy theory that '9/11 was an inside job'.

And we have all just read, right here on Jihadwatch, the story above this one, about the Muslim leader in Nigeria, who preached that Muslims should kill the young Christians - and off went the Muslim mob and murdered two young Christians, one Catholic, one Protestant (Muslim hatred is entirely ecumenical).

I wonder, sometimes, how long it will be before Muslim mobs start bursting into Christian churches, or ambushing Christian priests and church workers, right here in 'Western' countries.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at October 22, 2007 4:47 PM

Euro western? could very well be...
as far as HERE here in the US?

Only in the big city, perhaps...not here-they'd be greeted by self-defense force (and no, there is no moral conflict with that, as to do nothing is suicide-a mental disorder).

Posted by: jcom972 at October 22, 2007 5:27 PM

I posted more from al-Buti on the Nigerian thread
but they amplify the point:

On p.323-324 Dr. Muhammad al-Buti writes:

"The verse 9:5 does not leave any room in the mind to conjecture about what is called defensive war. This verse asserts that Holy War which is demanded in Islamic law, is not defensive war
because it could legitimately be called an offensive war. This is the apex and most
honorable of all Holy Wars."

p.242 "Defensive warfare in Islam is nothing but a phase of the Islamic mission which the Prophet practiced. After that, it was followed by another phase, that is, calling all people to embrace Islam so that nothing less would be acceptable from atheists and those who associate other deities with God. Also, nothing would be acceptable from the People of the Book except
conversion to Islam or being subjugated to Muslim rule. In addition, there is the command to fight
anyone who attempts to stand in its way...until the day of resurrection!"

Hoisted on his own petard, I would say.

Let's also mention, in the name of bringing the two religions closer together, the scholars say this: "Christ himself used violence against the money-changers in the temple"-I guess equating turning over tables with killing disbelievers (how many did Christ kill there exactly?)-"and Christ said 'I did not come to bring
peace, but a sword.' Of course, one spoke in
metaphors and told his follower Peter to put up his (real) sword; the other was quite literal in saying "paradise is under the shade of swords", ordered assassinations, and personally beheaded prisoners. But why quibble with genuine scholars?

"When the prophet migrated from Mecca to Medina God ordered him to only fight those who fought him only. Then when the Chapter of Repentance (surah 9) was revealed, God commanded his Prophet to fight anyone who did not become a Muslim whether they fought him or not." -- al-Jawziyya, Saudi scholar.

Reliance of the Traveler, the Sunni legal manual
endorsed by Al-Azhar University, states
Jihad is "a communal obligation" to make "war against non Muslims. The Caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians & Zoroastrians...until they become Muslims or else pay the non Muslim poll tax...the Caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim" (and if there is no caliph, jihad must still be carried out). "Jihad... is etymologically derived from the word 'mujahada' signifying warfare to establish the religion...the duty of Jihad exists as long as the
universal domination of Islam has not been attained 'until the end of the world'."

"So at first the fighting was prohibited then it was permitted and after that it was made obligatory ...Allah revealed in Surah 9 the order to discard all obligations (treaties)and commanded the Muslims to fight against all the pagans well as the People of the Book if they do not embrace Islam, till they pay the
jizya with willing submission and feel themselves
subdued' " --Dr. M. Mushinkhan, Medina Islamic
University introduction to Sahih Bukhari.

We could also mention the connotations in Arabic of words used to describe Christians and other
disbelievers, like kuffar and infidel. You know, something impure, filthy, disgusting...

Posted by: Nick Danger at October 22, 2007 5:56 PM

This is not suprising because this could mean a pause before the storm.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at October 22, 2007 7:25 PM

The Vatican has demonstrated a more realistic attitude towards Islam since Benedict became Pope. Many who post here might recall that his predecessor, John Paul, kissed the Koran. Benedict, I predict, will never kiss that damn book. Cardinal Tauran's comment in the article above is yet more evidence of a more accurate assessment by Vatican officials respecting the world's most intolerant faith.

Posted by: Wellington at October 22, 2007 7:38 PM