Two Commandments of love.” please what are the “Two Commandments of love”

I have not come across these yet, so please some-one enlighten me

Posted by: shiva at February 26, 2008 10:01 AM

The concept "Inter-faith", in this instance, is the same kind of ruse that infections use to breach cell walls: mimick the host in order to avoid triggering its defenses.

Kumbayah! soon becomes Allahu Akbar!

Posted by: profitsbeard at February 26, 2008 10:04 AM

D'Sousa says that

Certainly some relief was in order, because Muslims who seek common cause with the West, or at with the Christian West, are far preferable to those who seek to destroy us.

"By their fruits you shall know them."

Posted by: John C at February 26, 2008 10:15 AM

Shiva,

The Christian "Great Commandments" from the lips of Jesus are "You shall love the Lord your God with your whole mind, your whole heart, and your whole soul" and "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." (The Parable of The Good Samaritan illustrates the question, "Who is our neighbor?")

Posted by: John C at February 26, 2008 10:24 AM

".. while noting the lack of reciprocity in the treatment of Christians in Islamic countries.."

A bit OT, but in case you missed it: Cyprus voted for a demented commie rat-bag who 'wants to unite the Island'- no such thing will happen of course, unless he gives it away to the occupying Turks on the northern end of the Island.

The Turk of course makes nothing but demands and will not concede anything.

http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-02-25-voa41.cfm

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at February 26, 2008 10:42 AM

These two Great Commandments summarize "the whole of the Law and the Prophets; there are none greater than these."

Jesus gave his followers yet another commandment:

Love one another as I have loved you.

Posted by: John C at February 26, 2008 10:46 AM

Shiva wrote:

Two Commandments of love.” please what are the “Two Commandments of love”

I have not come across these yet, so please some-one enlighten me
.............................

So far as I have been able to determine--from other's commentary on the letter--the "Two Commandments of love" refer to being enjoined to love Allah and to love your neighbor. So far as I can tell, though, loving your neighbor is a Christian concept, but not an Islamic one. Certainly, it is nowhere in the Qur'an.
........

I had to look up Friedrich Von Hugel. I'm not sure if Hugh refered to him because of his lay--and perhaps somewhat shaky?--religious scholarship, or because he retained his Austrian citizenship until the darkest days of WWI.

Hugh, can you enlighten me?

The poetry cited is Yeats, in reference to Von Hugel's seeming dismissal of the artistic importance of Homer, since he had not been a Christian.

"So get you gone, Von Hügel, though with blessings on your head."

Posted by: gravenimage at February 26, 2008 11:08 AM

Say Shahada once, say Shahada twice, but never say Shahada thrice.

All Islamic apologists have said Shahada once. D'Souza, Cole etc. And some have said Shahada twice like Esposito, and Armstrong et al, but you notice that none of them will say Shahada thrice. While they defend Islam and hang out with muslims, they won't cross the line and convert. If Islam is such a swell religion, why not? Or maybe they have made the mistake of uttering the third Shahada and Allah is now possessing them. How does a slave to Allah act when they don't realize they are a slave to Allah?
Sounds a little schizophrenic. Cognitive dissonance at least. Can we trust an infidel who has said Shahada at all? How about Barack? I know he has said Shahada at least twice, can we trust him? Hardly. Bush also is a twice sayer in my opinion, which makes his Christianity weak, in spite of appearances. If Bush can't see any differences between the God of Jesus, and the god Of Mohammad, he has already said the third Shahada, and his Christianity is a sham. Same thing for Obama. Neither one of them is fit for the presidency in my opinion...

Posted by: duh_swami at February 26, 2008 11:08 AM

gravenimage:

I had to look up Friedrich Von Hugel. I'm not sure if Hugh refered to him because of his lay--and perhaps somewhat shaky?--religious scholarship, or because he retained his Austrian citizenship until the darkest days of WWI.

Hugh didn't refer to him at all. I did. And contrary to jihadist rumor, I am not Hugh.

I referred to him in his capacity as Catholic apologist.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at February 26, 2008 11:11 AM

The comments of Australian Anglican cleric, Dr. Mark Durie, should be required reading for everyone, but most espeically those gullible enough to buy into the muslim interfaith 'we are all alike so why can't we all just get along?' BS. The reason we can't get along with them is THEM. End of story.

Dr. Durie wrote in conclusion:

It does not seem to be the case that the signatories of A Common Word understand concepts such as justice, loving one’s neighbour and ‘freedom of religion’ in the same way that most Christians would.* The Chief Scholar of the Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute, who was a highly prominent signatory of the Common Word letter, is calling for Christians who have converted to Islam to be killed, or else they should be deprived of their rights and treated legally as ‘dead men walking.’ Indeed, because these fatwas are available over the internet, the former Grand Mufti and the Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute are effectively calling for the death of Christians day after day, and will do so until this material is taken down from the site. [See report at the head of this article.]

Christians — and many others as well — will regard this as a moral inconsistency. How can anyone invite Christians to affirm loving one’s neighbour and freedom of religion, and at the same time promote the killing of Christians, just because they have left Islam? If freedom of religion means anything, it means the right to choose what one believes. This is an excellent issue to raise in interfaith dialogue with the signatories of A Common Word.

It is also worth asking how peace can be achieved in this world as long as violence is promoted as the way to resolve religious differences.

Christians who wish to enter into dialogue with Muslims on the basis of the invitation offered to them in A Common Word should ask the Aal al-Bayt Institute to take the apostasy fatwas off its website, and offer an public apology to former Muslims for inciting hatred and violence against them. This would be a most welcome sign of good will, and demonstrate a commitment to universal values of reciprocity, love for one’s neighbour and freedom of religion.

Finally, the Christian scholars and leaders who have signed letters welcoming A Common Word should consider withdrawing their signatures.
---

* This uncommon ground in words is a major problem that is pervasive among non-muslims. 'Justice' to a muslim always means shari'a. 'Innocent', well, try to pin one of those mullahs or sheikhs down on that one. Good luck. 'Freedom of religion' means that only islam, and its rules and tenets, can rule. Anything less is a crime against the human rights of muslims. There really needs to be a side by side comparison made of words muslim use that mean something completely different than that to which we ascribe as a definition. Let's start with 'martyr'.

muslim - A person who dies for his faith, with a desired consequence of killing others, along with himself, for their lack of his faith.

Christian - A person who dies for his faith, usually as a result of being tortured then killed, all the while keeping the faith.

IMHO, so many people are so willfully ignorant that to read anything deeper than that laid out for them, in an easy to read, comparative format, will go, well, ignored.

Posted by: Rick at February 26, 2008 11:16 AM

Sorry, just not buying it. If Islamic muftis, mullahs, imans and scholars were serious about interfaith dialogue, they would be setting up programs to counter the strict interpretation of the Qur'an that is now being taught in 3 out of 4 madrassas in the US.

Posted by: tanstaafl at February 26, 2008 11:19 AM

Why is it every time I read/see/hear the word "ulema" I think of someone sticking something up their anus?

Posted by: TheOmegaMan at February 26, 2008 11:20 AM

A schoolteacher (contra-jihadist) is trying to reform a juvenile delinquent (islam). She states her behavioral objectives (absolute reform, which do not include groveling).

The pimply-faced, switchblade-toting crack-head, after much prompting, is able to parrot some of her objectives.

What’s her next move? Should she shout at the brat ‘till she’s red in the face? Maybe she should start yelling about the teaching techniques of the pedagogue in the next room. Perhaps she should loudly admit to the oaf that her life would be better if he did not exist.

None of the above. If she is a good educator, she will carefully and firmly use positive reinforcement to reshape his inappropriate behavior. This is not kumbayuh; this is behavioral management.

Her task ain’t easy, but it can be done.

She’s one tough lady.

Posted by: skevin at February 26, 2008 11:54 AM

Robert Spencer wrote:

Hugh didn't refer to him at all. I did. And contrary to jihadist rumor, I am not Hugh.

I referred to him in his capacity as Catholic apologist.
......................................

Please accept my apologies. I have never conflated the two of you. This "sounded" like a Hugh post to me, and I obviously hadn't checked the byline. All I can say in my defence is that it was pretty early out here on the West coast when I responded.

Posted by: gravenimage at February 26, 2008 12:17 PM

WOW - MAYBE THEY SHOULD ASK ROBERTS ADVICE !!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7264903.stm

Turkey in radical revision of Islamic texts
By Robert Piggott
Religious affairs correspondent, BBC News

The scholars say they are returning to the original values of Islam

Turkey is preparing to publish a document that represents a revolutionary reinterpretation of Islam - and a controversial and radical modernisation of the religion.

The country's powerful Department of Religious Affairs has commissioned a team of theologians at Ankara University to carry out a fundamental revision of the Hadith, the second most sacred text in Islam after the Koran.

The Hadith is a collection of thousands of sayings reputed to come from the Prophet Muhammad.

As such, it is the principal guide for Muslims in interpreting the Koran and the source of the vast majority of Islamic law, or Sharia.

This is kind of akin to the Christian Reformation. Not exactly the same, but... it's changing the theological foundations of [the] religion

Fadi Hakura,
Turkey expert, Chatham House

But the Turkish state has come to see the Hadith as having an often negative influence on a society it is in a hurry to modernise, and believes it responsible for obscuring the original values of Islam.

It says that a significant number of the sayings were never uttered by Muhammad, and even some that were need now to be reinterpreted.

'Reformation'

Commentators say the very theology of Islam is being reinterpreted in order to effect a radical renewal of the religion.

Its supporters say the spirit of logic and reason inherent in Islam at its foundation 1,400 years ago are being rediscovered. Some believe it could represent the beginning of a reformation in the religion.

Some messages ban women from travelling without their husband's permission... But this isn't a religious ban. It came about because it simply wasn't safe for a woman to travel alone

Prof Mehmet Gormez,
Hadith expert,
Department of Religious Affairs

Turkish officials have been reticent about the revision of the Hadith until now, aware of the controversy it is likely to cause among traditionalist Muslims, but they have spoken to the BBC about the project, and their ambitious aims for it.

The forensic examination of the Hadiths has taken place in Ankara University's School of Theology.

An adviser to the project, Felix Koerner, says some of the sayings - also known individually as "hadiths" - can be shown to have been invented hundreds of years after the Prophet Muhammad died, to serve the purposes of contemporary society.

"Unfortunately you can even justify through alleged hadiths, the Muslim - or pseudo-Muslim - practice of female genital mutilation," he says.

"You can find messages which say 'that is what the Prophet ordered us to do'. But you can show historically how they came into being, as influences from other cultures, that were then projected onto Islamic tradition."

The argument is that Islamic tradition has been gradually hijacked by various - often conservative - cultures, seeking to use the religion for various forms of social control.

Leaders of the Hadith project say successive generations have embellished the text, attributing their political aims to the Prophet Muhammad himself.

Revolutionary

Turkey is intent on sweeping away that "cultural baggage" and returning to a form of Islam it claims accords with its original values and those of the Prophet.

Women are re-examining their portrayal in the scriptures

But this is where the revolutionary nature of the work becomes apparent. Even some sayings accepted as being genuinely spoken by Muhammad have been altered and reinterpreted.

Prof Mehmet Gormez, a senior official in the Department of Religious Affairs and an expert on the Hadith, gives a telling example.

"There are some messages that ban women from travelling for three days or more without their husband's permission and they are genuine.

"But this isn't a religious ban. It came about because in the Prophet's time it simply wasn't safe for a woman to travel alone like that. But as time has passed, people have made permanent what was only supposed to be a temporary ban for safety reasons."

The project justifies such bold interference in the 1,400-year-old content of the Hadith by rigorous academic research.

Prof Gormez points out that in another speech, the Prophet said "he longed for the day when a woman might travel long distances alone".

So, he argues, it is clear what the Prophet's goal was.

Original spirit

Yet, until now, the ban has remained in the text, and helps to restrict the free movement of some Muslim women to this day.

There's also violence against women within families, including sexual harassment... This does not exist in Islam... we have to explain that to them

Hulya Koc, a "vaize"

As part of its aggressive programme of renewal, Turkey has given theological training to 450 women, and appointed them as senior imams called "vaizes".

They have been given the task of explaining the original spirit of Islam to remote communities in Turkey's vast interior.

One of the women, Hulya Koc, looked out over a sea of headscarves at a town meeting in central Turkey and told the women of the equality, justice and human rights guaranteed by an accurate interpretation of the Koran - one guided and confirmed by the revised Hadith.

She says that, at the moment, Islam is being widely used to justify the violent suppression of women.

"There are honour killings," she explains.

"We hear that some women are being killed when they marry the wrong person or run away with someone they love.

"There's also violence against women within families, including sexual harassment by uncles and others. This does not exist in Islam... we have to explain that to them."

'New Islam'

According to Fadi Hakura, an expert on Turkey from Chatham House in London, Turkey is doing nothing less than recreating Islam - changing it from a religion whose rules must be obeyed, to one designed to serve the needs of people in a modern secular democracy.

He says that to achieve it, the state is fashioning a new Islam.

"This is kind of akin to the Christian Reformation," he says.

"Not exactly the same, but if you think, it's changing the theological foundations of [the] religion. "

Fadi Hakura believes that until now secularist Turkey has been intent on creating a new politics for Islam.

Now, he says, "they are trying to fashion a new Islam."

Significantly, the "Ankara School" of theologians working on the new Hadith have been using Western critical techniques and philosophy.

They have also taken an even bolder step - rejecting a long-established rule of Muslim scholars that later (and often more conservative) texts override earlier ones.

"You have to see them as a whole," says Fadi Hakura.

"You can't say, for example, that the verses of violence override the verses of peace. This is used a lot in the Middle East, this kind of ideology.

"I cannot impress enough how fundamental [this change] is."

Posted by: Churchill1939 at February 26, 2008 12:24 PM

When Mahmoud Mohamed Taha tried something like that in Sudan back in the last century, the faithful tried him for blasphemy and stretched his neck on the gallows.

Posted by: Papa Whiskey at February 26, 2008 12:48 PM

Churchill1939: BBC article -

'New Islam'
According to Fadi Hakura, an expert on Turkey from Chatham House in London, Turkey is doing nothing less than recreating Islam - changing it from a religion whose rules must be obeyed, to one designed to serve the needs of people in a modern secular democracy.

He says that to achieve it, the state is fashioning a new Islam.
This is kind of akin to the Christian Reformation," he says.

"I'm from Missourri, show me." It's fine to review and jettison parts of the Hadiths that pervert the original intent of the faith, if that original intent was honorable and not politicized and murderous. But there had been no historical evidence of this ever been done before with any success. Islam in its present orthodoxy is so far removed from modern day norms of human rights, equality of gender, and freedom of religion, as to be a virtually impossible task to reform it. I wish the reformers well, but not holding my breath. The Reformists will have to prove to the world that Islam is not an Arab imperialist agenda of world conquest, and then perhaps their can be meaningful dialogue.

Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at February 26, 2008 1:04 PM

Turkey is intent on sweeping away that "cultural baggage" and returning to a form of Islam it claims accords with its original values and those of the Prophet.

The problem is the “original values and those of the Prophet”.
Up dated Hadith is a start but what about Quran?
Jews have stoning in the Bible and the Muslims don’t in the Quran.
1.For touching Mount Sinai Exodus 19:13 2.For taking "accursed things" Joshua 7:1-26 3.For cursing or blaspheming Leviticus 24:16 4.For adultery (including urban rape victims who fail to scream loud enough) Deuteronomy 22:23-24 5.For animals (like an ox that gores a human) Exodus 21:28 6.For a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night Deuteronomy 22:13-21 7.For worshipping other gods Deuteronomy 17:2-5 8.For preaching the wrong religion Deuteronomy 13:5-10 9.For disobeying parents Deuteronomy 21:18-21 10.For witches and wizards Leviticus 20:27 11.For giving your children to Moloch Leviticus 20:2 12.For breaking the Sabbath Numbers 15:32-56 13.For cursing the king 1 Kings 21:10

Why is stoning a common punishment in Islamic countries, but rare or nonexistent in Jewish ones?

If the Jews don’t follow these old laws why do the Muslims?

Muslims must be the descendent's of “wild ass’s
Genesis 21:5-21
The angel of the Lord said to her further, "Behold, you are with child and shall bear a son; you shall call him Ishmael, for the Lord has paid heed to your suffering. He shall be a wild ass of a man; his hand against everyone, and everyone's hand against him; he shall dwell alongside of all his kinsmen."

Posted by: Joe Schmoe USA at February 26, 2008 1:08 PM

The Pope of course, embattled man, is put into an impossible position by this clever attempt to substitute PR for genuine dialogue.

Either he responds positively to what he is quite intelligent enough to know is a ruse, or the world media instantaneously treats him as a stonewaller, a provocateur, and a "fanatic".

It is a startling fact that Islam today is able to demonstrate the same manipulative cleverness with regard to the media at which the Soviet Union used to excel.

And as in that case the manipulator's best ally is the "enlightened" readiness of Western PC opinion to canonize to its own detriment "the other" - without information, without criticism, without thought, no matter what he may say or do, apparently out of nothing more than the suicidal self-loathing that occasionally makes one think "Robert Spencer believes that Western civilization and its values are worth defending, and I would like to agree with him, but...exactly how degenerate is it? It doesn't even seem to know how to respect itself".

Posted by: Novalis at February 26, 2008 1:23 PM

Beware of muftis bearing "interfaith" letters!
----------------------------------------------
We should definitely beware this, because the muftis aren't interested in dialogue, they're interested in domination.

But even if they were interested in dialogue, the idea of "interfaith" wouldn't work, because true Christians have virtually nothing in common with true Muslims, other than the fact that they are both human beings.

The key difference, of course, between the two is that Christians believe that Jesus died for our sins, and that he was God in the flesh; whereas Muslims believe that Jesus was only a prophet, and that He wasn't crucified, but rather was taken into heaven. This means that Christians and Muslims have very different views as to the correct method of pleasing God: Christians believe that the death of Jesus was payment for their sins; whereas Muslims believe that they must earn their salvation.

Both Christians and Muslims believe in converting non-believers; however, Christians win souls by loving them; whereas Muslims win souls by threatening them.

Although Christians believe that they have the answer to life's problems, they don't believe that they are better than anyone else; Muslims, however, believe that they are superior to everyone else.

Posted by: PersonOfTheBook at February 26, 2008 1:29 PM

You just can't fix D'Stupid. Another abyssmal piece by him.

As far as the letter, Robert has been there and done that.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/018531.php

Posted by: awake at February 26, 2008 1:47 PM

Here is a good one, this group "Muslim Bridges"

Rev. Pat Robertson - 700 Club Print E-mail

For Immediate Release
Contact info@MuslimBridges.orgThis email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it

In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful

An invitation to end hostilities and work together

Feb 4, 2008

Rev. Robertson,

Assalamu alikum, Peace be to you

Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) has said "None of you will enter paradise unless you believe and none of you truly believe unless you love one another". We are guided by the scripture stating "Then, We sent after them Our Messengers, and We sent Jesus - son of Mary, and gave him the Injeel (Gospel), and placed compassion and mercy in the hearts of those who followed him". (Qur'an, 57:27). When we consider that love and compassion for one another is at the center of both of our faiths, can we now, at last, follow these teachings?

Back when Mayor Rudy Giuliani was a political frontrunner, you endorsed his candidacy, despite the fact that he is quite liberal and often differs with Evangelicals on many important issues. Muslims were very opposed to Mayor Giuliani because he often engaged in racist, anti-Islamic rhetoric against all Muslims. We still suspect that your significant endorsement was for exactly the same reason as our humble opposition: his anti-Islamic views, and support of Zionism.

Now that Giuliani is defeated, we are reaching out to you in hopes of making peace with you by building on what we all have in common: the love of God our Creator, who teaches us to know one another and work together: "O mankind! We created you from a single soul, male and female, and made you into nations and tribes, so that you may come to know one another. Truly, the most honored of you in God's sight is the greatest of you in piety. God is All-Knowing, All-Aware." (Qur'an 49:13)

People of faith all across the world -- and in America -- are protesting the siege of Gaza and the slow genocide being committed against the civilian Palestinian population, from whom Israel is denying not only access to food, water, medicine, but also gas and electricity. Public protests across our nation were held in support of freedom and justice to the innocent Palestinians. Hundreds of human rights organizations and groups, including many Jewish groups inside Israel, rushed aid, and made their voices heard to condemn this war crime by Israel. Courageous rabbis and Christian Church leaders held high the Palestinian flags, as their way of solidarity with the suffering Palestinians.

Jews, Christians and Muslims are all considered "People of the Book." We find our common origins in beliefs in the teaching of prophet Abraham (peace be upon him) and many of the other prophets you find in your Old Testament. In today's troubled world, theologians from all three religions are condemning the principle of Zionism, which is clearly distinct from Judaism, calling attention to the dreadful truth that Zionism is pure racism and has absolutely no foundation in any scripture. Listen to the voices of opposition to Israeli oppression. The Christian Palestinians are appalled by your silence. When will you condemn Israel for its massacres? They are asking why a man who preaches the Bible would support injustice and terrorism. Why you oppose two States living side by side in peace and call it "suicide of Israel?" Why don't you support a single state where all Jews, Christians, and Muslims have equal rights?

We recognize that you have held on to your position for a very long time, but now anyone can see the horrors and injustice of State Terrorism and what it is doing to our security and economy here in America. We hope you come to the right path and consider these ideas proposed towards mutual reconciliation.

1. Meet with "People of the Book"

We would like to invite you to meet with rabbis along with Christian and Muslim leaders who believe in cooperation, co-existence, and working together for peace. This is an opportunity for a dialogue on theological basis, connecting all of us in the worship of the same One God, the God of Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed (peace be upon all of them). This very moment in human history is an opportunity to witness that all the scriptures call for love and mercy, and all reject racism, injustice, occupation, oppression, and terrorism. Rev. Robertson, will you accept our invitation?

2. Stop the Hate Speech

Anti-Islamic provocations such as your famous quote, "Muslims are worse than the Nazis," has to stop. Hateful speech targeting any groups cannot be tolerated. Will you immediately pledge to stop any hate speech and distance yourself from anyone with affiliation to Zionist / Racist / Hate groups?

3. Speak out against Israeli terrorism

The United Nations has condemned the acts of Israel; many call it a war crime. The notion that Israel is permitted to break all international laws for so called "security reasons" is completely reprehensible. Rev. Robertson, as a Christian leader preaching the Bible, will you loudly and clearly condemn the actions of Israel and call it "State Terrorism?"

4. Support American Health Care with American Resources

The issue of health care reforms is well discussed in recent presidential debates for the 47 million Americans without health care. Yet the argument against health care for all Americans is often that it is too expensive. During the recent Bush trip to Israel, despite Israeli abuse of the Palestinians, a very generous $30 Billion aid package was handed out to Israel. Rev. Robertson, all people of faith in this country believe in compassion and helping our fellow Americans who are in need, struggling during these difficult times. Can we count on your voice to demand and press for an immediate freeze on the $30 Billion aid package to Israel , and the redirection of this money to be used as an emergency fund toward health care for the uninsured in America?

5. Recognize that there is no Compulsion in religion

"There is no compulsion in religion" Quran 2:256. It is estimated nearly 500 Americans embrace Islam every day, including many women, well educated Americans such as college professors and students, even misters of Churches. This should not be viewed in anyway as an area of contentions, nor should it alarm you to wage efforts towards converting Muslims to Christianity. We are disturbed that you seem to be exploiting charity in order to wage efforts towards converting Muslims to Christianity. We are concerned that significant donations collected by you are spent in poor and devastated areas in such regions as Iraq, Afghanistan, Africa, and Southeast Asia where food is delivered in one hand, and the Bible in the other. We have received many reports, including video footage documenting that the goal of missionaries in Iraq is to convert Muslims to Christianity while under US occupation. We consider this as a form of "compulsion" or at least coercion, which is scripturally unacceptable. Rev. Robertson, will you respect our diversity and choices, and give help to the needy and most vulnerable people without conditions or expectations?

Rev. Robertson, we can think of more issues that require mutual cooperation, but the above five actions are certainly a good starting point for a change. We offer you the olive branch -- a change towards cooperation with people that you really don't yet know well enough. Come get to know us, because when you do, you will find Muslims who are good Americans with ways to work together and resolve the challenges ahead of all of us.

Rev. Robertson, thank you for your consideration. We look forward to your reply.

The Management team of MuslimBridges
Representing American Muslim Volunteers
Looking for Peace, Building Bridges.
MuslimBridges.org
27475 Ynez Rd
Temecula, CA 92591

Posted by: Joe Schmoe USA at February 26, 2008 1:48 PM

Joe Schmoe,

It's hypocrisy and double-talk by Muslims pretending to have the moral high ground. I am impressed by their ability to change tact in a single breath--which is it, two states or a unitary state?

Posted by: John C at February 26, 2008 2:00 PM

Here is a E-mail exchange with "Muslim Bridges" asking if they are in support of the "suicide bombings" by Hamas.
1 > > On 3/19/07, bob wrote:
> > > >
> > > > This is an enquiry e-mail via http://www.muslimbridges.org from:
> > > > bob
> > > >
> > > > The whole population undergoes military training.
> > > > That makes all "military reserves"..so suicide bombing is a form of
> > > > military strategy .thus ok. to blow up babies? children? The whole
> > > > population?
> > > >
> > > > Is this a fatwa against terrorism....or is it condoning it?
> > > > Please be clear..
> > > > Do you condemn Hamas for this "Military strategy" ? as they claim it
> > > > to be.

2 > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > *From:* Muslim Bridges
> > > *To:* bob
> > > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 20, 2007 1:47 PM
> > > *Subject:* Re: Muslim Bridges: fatwa against terrorism....
> > >
> > >
> > > "Invite (all) to the Way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful
> > > preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious: for
> > > thy Lord knoweth best, who have strayed from His Path, and who receive
> > > guidance." -Holy Quran, Surah 16:125
> > >
> > > Assalamu alikum (Peace be upon you) Br. Bob,
> > >
> > > Thank you very much for taking the time and visiting Muslim
> > > Bridges. We appreciate your message.
> > >
> > > Regarding the topic of "suicide bombing", there is clear reference in
> > > the last paragraph of the articles, as to the position of Islam on this
> > > subject. Here is another short article titled "Notes on Islamic Jihad",
> > > that you may find very interesting : http://www.muslimbridges.org/content/view/548/
> > >
> > >
> > > Muslim Bridges is not a political site. Our goal is to build bridges
> > > of understanding. President Carter has recently published a book
> > > "Palestine, Peace not Apartheid", offering a sensible solution that could
> > > bring peace to the entire M.East, and positively impact the entire
> > > world. Here is a link for the book review, and a free book offer :
> > > http://www.muslimbridges.org/content/view/42/35/
> > >
> > > Here is one more article titled "Waiting for Jesus", reflecting our
> > > common hopes for peace and prosperity, love of God, and mutual respect of
> > > Jesus (Peace be upon him):
> > > http://www.muslimbridges.org/content/view/433/81/
> > >
> > > Thank you again. We hope to hear from you soon.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > Your friends at Muslim Bridges
> > > www.MuslimBridges.org
> > >
>
3 > On 3/20/07, bob wrote:
> > >
> > > Muslim Bridges does not have to be a political site to answer my
> > > question .
> > >
> > > I am asking it because;
> > >
> > > When reading the topic "suicide bombings" the main subject was Hamas's
> > > "Military strategy".
> > >
> > > If this is a fatwa against terrorism, and you used Hamas as an
> > > example, why would you not state if you agree or disagree with them.?
> > >
> > > Do you condemn Hamas for this "Military strategy" ? as they claim it
> > > to be.
> > >
> > ----- Original Message -----
4> *From:* Muslim Bridges
> > *To:* bob
> > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 20, 2007 2:41 PM
> > *Subject:* Re: Muslim Bridges: fatwa against terrorism....
> >
> >
> > *Targeting innocent civilians, whether by military operations,
> > "intentional" or "collateral damage" such as combat airplanes dropping bombs
> > in residential areas, suicide bombing, or any other form of war resulting in
> > the killing of innocent civilians, is absolutely prohibited under any
> > circumstances. *
> >
> > Unlike bias media - always taking the one side, this statement applies
> > to all.
> > Best regards,
> > Your friends at Muslim Bridges
> > www.MuslimBridges.org
> >
> >>
>
5 On 3/20/07, bob wrote:
>
> > I understand that..""targeting *innocent civilians* is prohibited
> > under any circumstances"..In Islam.....
> >
> > Please understand what ..I am asking ......
> >
> > ..The "military strategy" of Hamas.. is as follows... The military
> > reserves are *"the whole population of Israel",*
> > *
> >
> > The population of Israel at large are not considered civilian,
> > *So therefore ...to strap a bomb around oneself and to
> >
> > *kill this population , *is a justified military strategy* of war *because
> > Hamas does not have the military strenght to confront the enemy on the
> > battlefield, and
> >
> > Israel has no civilians.
> >
> > *ok.. I got that ...But please tell me..*
> >
> > Does Hamas have approval in Islam, to use this form of "Military
> > Strategy?.
> >
> > Do you agree, with Hamas that it is a justified act, during war time ,
> > to strap a bomb around oneself, and blow up, killing *non civilians ,
> > military reserves,*
> >
> > who, in this case are the whole of the population of Israel...?.??.
> >
> > Your article " Suicide Bombings" explains the difference between Suicide
> > and Mililary Strategy, .
> >
> > I never knew the difference, or that there was a difference..
> >
> > thanks for the explanation.... but you have to understand...
> >
> > This following statement means *NOTHING....*
> >
> > Targeting innocent civilians, whether by military operations,
> > "intentional" or "collateral damage" such as combat airplanes dropping bombs
> > in residential areas, suicide bombing, or any other form of war resulting in
> > the killing of innocent civilians, is absolutely prohibited under any
> > circumstances.
> >
> > Is just alot of *blah blah blah ...*if you don't define who are
> > *" innocent civilians"....*get what i'm saying?*
> >
> > so......
> >
> > Please ...
> >
> > What do
> > you say ...
> >
> > The population of Israel...
> >
> > Are they " innocent civilians"...or
> >
> > Are they "
> > military reserves" ..*
> >
> > you said ......."Unlike bias media - always taking the one side, this
> > statement applies to all."
> >
> > applies to all Do you mean All=-*innocent civilians*-.

> ---- Original Message -----
>
6 *From:* Muslim Bridges
> *To:* bob
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 20, 2007 10:16 PM
> *Subject:* Re: Muslim Bridges: fatwa against terrorism....
>
>
> Is there any reason you are only interested in the innocent civilians in
> Israel and not the innocent civilians of Palestine. Aren't both the same
> and both deserve the same ruling, the same human rights, and the right to
> live in dignity? Do you not find Jimmy Carter's views and proposals to be
> valid and positive for the sake of peace for all the people in the M.East?
>
> The challenge we often see Br. Bob is the media only speaks of the victims
> in Israel. This is wrong. There are innocent victims on both sides. Here
> is a video clip that you may find interesting (the second segment of the
> clip): http://www.muslimbridges.org/content/view/604/
>
> We suggested a number of links in our earlier messages to give you a>

7 On 3/20/07, bob wrote:
>
> WoW...You still have not answered me?
>
> Please understand..
>
> I never knew Hamas believed the population of Israel was military,
>
> and not civilian, and that is what makes the
> difference between suicide bombers
>
> and the" Mililary Strategys of Hamas".
>
> Why did you ask me .... "Is there any reason you are only interested in
> the innocent civilians in
> Israel and not the innocent civilians of Palestine." ?
>
> I never said .. I do not care about the innocent civilians of Palestine.
>
> That question has nothing to do with my questions....
>
> Israel has not said; the innocent civilians of Palestine are non
> civilians , they are military reserves.
>
> Hamas did make that claim..You used it in your article " Suicide Bombings"
> to explain the
>
> difference between suicide and the mililary strategy of Hamas. .
>
> That is why I would like to know
>
> Is this an accepted "Military Strategy" in Islam? and..
>
> Do you agree with it?
>
> The questions are very clear, and I believe worthy of answers.
>
> Will you answer them for me please.?
>
> Thankyou,

8 from ;Muslim Bridges
date; wed march 21,2007 12:48 pm
to; bob
Subject:* Re: Muslim Bridges: fatwa against terrorism....

We regret, this discussion is going beyond the type of dialogue and healthy
exchange desired.

Here are 2 links that may help you put things into prospective (You stated:
Israel has not said; the innocent civilians of Palestine are non civilians
, they are military reserves.)
http://www.muslimbridges.org/content/view/135/
http://www.muslimbridges.org/content/view/136/

We are encouraged not to exchange in arguments and simply say "Peace"

Therefore, as our final reply. Peace.

Posted by: Joe Schmoe USA at February 26, 2008 2:02 PM

These sorts of deceitful practices by Muslims (which are a form of stealth jihad) will will continue with possible growing success in deceiving the citizens of the western democracies and especially Americans (who are about to get a Muslim president in the White house, courtesy of the "Oprah" empire) until the west FINALLY learns and understands the REAL contents of Islamic doctrine.

Reading and comprehending the teachings of the Kuran is the only way to stop this stealth jihad from succeeding.

Posted by: pythagoras at February 26, 2008 2:09 PM

Should read, "to change tack in a single breath--"

Posted by: John C at February 26, 2008 2:15 PM

There is an excellent analysis of "A Common Word between Us and You" carried out by the Barnabas Fund, available at http://www.barnabasfund.org/news/archives/article.php?ID_news_items=342

Posted by: Masthead at February 26, 2008 2:20 PM

A common word was more an ultimatum. Shame the media take things at face value rather than look under the wrapper.

Posted by: James at February 26, 2008 2:29 PM

"A common word was more an ultimatum. Shame the media take things at face value rather than look under the wrapper."

James that statement could be mistaken for

"Islamaphobia" :0

Posted by: Joe Schmoe USA at February 26, 2008 2:59 PM

Good point about the passage from Quran Sura 3, Robert! I read from the Malik translation, which is also prepared by pious Muslims, and the meaning is even less cryptic. The whole section reads:

Say: "O people of the Book! Let us get together on what is common between us and you: that we shall worship none but Allah; that we shall not associate any partners with Him; that we shall not take from among ourselves any lords beside Allah." If they reject your invitation then tell them: "Bear witness that we are Muslims (who have surrendered to Allah)."[64] O people of the Book! Why do you argue with us about Abraham, as to whether he was a Jew or a Christian? You know that the Torah and the Gospel were revealed long after him? Have you no sense at all?[65] So far you have been arguing about things of which you had some knowledge! Must you now argue about that of which you know nothing at all? Allah knows while you do not.[66] Abraham was neither a Jew nor a Christian but he was a Muslim, true in faith. He was not one of the Pagans (who set up partners with Allah).[67] Surely the people nearest to Abraham are those who follow him, which are this Prophet (Muhammad) and those who believe with him; Allah is the Protector of only those who are the believers.[68] Some of the People of the Book want to mislead you; but they mislead none except themselves, though they do not realize it.[69] O People of the Book! Why do you deny the revelations of Allah when you know that they are true?[70] O People of the Book! Why do you confound the truth with falsehood and knowingly conceal the truth?[71] 3:[64-71]

Posted by: Archimedes2 at February 26, 2008 4:00 PM

"The common bonds between Muslims and Christians" are swords--one party's hand holding it, the other party feeling its edge.

This is not an original observation, but one that jumps out at one from the history books.

Posted by: unicorns62000 at February 26, 2008 5:46 PM

One way to take the air out of the sails of the "Common Word" letter is to understand that there is nothing common between me and thee. At the very very core of all this talk is the assumption the allah and the True and Living God that Jesus has made know are the same. THEY ARE NOT and NEVER HAVE BEEN! The second concept is LOVE. How can you love the Lord you God as stated in scripture if they are not the same God. If you are loving one god, allah, you will hate the other. If you are loving the true God you will despise the other. You can't love both .

On a human level Jesus (the man) did always what God wished him to do and gave himself a sacrifice for mankind. Mohammad on the other hand did many terrible things and used his god to justify his actions by making wrong right and right wrong. I am speaking only as a man among men.

Deu 5:6-10
I am the LORD your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before Me. You shall not make for yourself an idol, any likeness what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, and on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing loving kindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.

المانيا 5:6-10
انا الرب الهك الذي جلب خروجك من أرض مصر ، من بيت العبوديه. انك لن يكون لها اي آلهة اخرى امامي. انك لن تجعل لنفسك وهو المعبود ، اي التشابه ما هو في السماء من فوق وما في الارض من تحت وما في الماء تحت الأرض. انك لن العبادة لهم او تخدمهم ؛ بالنسبة لي ، لأن الرب الهك ، انا غيور الله ، في زيارة للظلم الآباء على الاطفال ، وعلى الثالث والرابع من اجيال مبغضي ، ولكن تبين المحبة اللطف الى الآلاف ، الى الذين يحبون لي ويبقى بلدي الوصايا.

Posted by: Im.mad.as.HELL! at February 26, 2008 9:42 PM

Its kind of cute to see how Muslims call on Christians to be better Christians, to love their neighbors, (Muslims) remind them to follow the Christian scriptures (which are pacifist) in order to overcome and conquer them.

Perhaps Christians need to grow a spine and remember that self-preservation must be the an absolute priority here.

This is not to say that Jews are better at self-preservation, as we all know...

On another note:
Sikhs: again victims of Islamic terror

http://sheikyermami.com/2008/02/27/sikhs-again-victims-of-islamic-terror/

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at February 26, 2008 10:21 PM

A good page with different responses to the letter 'a common word' can be found here:

http://www.answering-islam.org/Letters/common_word.htm

I like this response:

http://www.barnabasfund.org/news/archives/text.php?ID_news_items=342

It basically says that the letter is a call to convert to islam or face the consequences. So, are we(the non islamic world) about to be attacked again???

Posted by: MohammedSucks at February 27, 2008 6:46 AM

sheik yer'mami writes:
"Perhaps Christians need to grow a spine and remember that self-preservation must be the an absolute priority here."

I write:
In point of fact, Christians must always remember that love is the single highest, most absolute, priority. The worse aberrations of Christian faith have been a direct result of Christians losing sight of this priority.

What is love, though, for the Christian? It is not "Let's all sit around the fire and sing kumbaya." It is practical. It is what we do for others. In practical terms, Christians have always advocated protection of the weak as the highest form of love. Thus, I would argue, the most (perhaps the only) Christian warrant for war is protection of those unable to protect themselves. This, then, is not about self-preservation, a preoccupation that the Christian tradition has generally condemned as narcissistic. It is about protecting others, whether it be our own families, or people we do not even know but none the less choose to fight for.

Coming at it from another perspective, self-preservation can rarely justify an individual soldier going to war. Consider Iraq, for instance. If we were all motivated by self-preservation, there would be no soldiers in Iraq! If an American currently in uniform is ordered to go to Iraq, and if self-preservation is her or his absolute priority, then he or she would best refuse to go. Why? Because, even in a military prison her or his chance of preserving his or her own life is higher than in it is in Iraq. Certainly, there would be absolutely no reason for a civilian to sign up. The soldier, or civilian, usually is motivated by some sense of duty, which is, in that case, not about himSELF or herSELF at all, but about her or his concern for others. The very term "Fight for your country" is, if you think about it, entirely not about the self. It is a recognition that sometimes the self is of secondary importance to the community, and that the former must be voluntarily sacrificed (on the battlefield, in this case) for the good of the latter. That, incidentally, is precisely the message of the cross.

This is not meant as an argument against self-defense, btw. There is nothing wrong with a person fighting in self-defense, per se. If someone breaks into my home and tries to rape or kill me, I will fight back. The point is that I cannot live my life concerned only with myself, lest I become a deeply narcissistic, and thus generally nasty, individual.

Posted by: FidesEtRatio at February 27, 2008 7:48 AM

Whenever I hear about Interfaith dialog I want to reach for my pistol.

Posted by: Seymour Paine at February 27, 2008 12:15 PM

Islam of course does NOT permit ANY interfaith dialogues of any sort for the simple reason that Islam OUTLAWS all other religions and ideologies other than itself.

"Make friends witb neither Christians or Jews" orders al-lah in the Kuran.If you are a Christian or a Jew (or anything else really other than a Muslim) you are banished from any type of dialogue with practitioners of Islam.

Such overtures made by Muslims as seen above are taqiyya and nothing else--they are active attempts to subvert through deception.

Posted by: pythagoras at February 27, 2008 9:47 PM