The British government thus is helping Mohammed to conduct a jihad against Christians by promoting the Bible bashing, anti-Christian propaganda in "The Da Vinci Code."...

This is just ridiculous. It's as unreal as the plot of the novel/film in question. If you believe the paranoid crap deduction above then you need to get out more.

Sorry.

Posted by: Turbinehead at May 17, 2006 1:28 PM

Well, to me, Da Vinci Code was just a movie. And I was going to see it eventually. But, now, I am not going to give any of my money to muslims, so I will never watch it.

I hope they go under. Way under.

Posted by: freewoman at May 17, 2006 1:29 PM

Freewoman, you were right first time it's just a movie.

If we stopped giving money to muslims then we in the UK would starve without our Indian food and we would be walking or cycling everywhere without our petrol (gas to you). The petrol I could do without. The food sadly not.

It's a big leap from movie mogul who's out in the open to snide, coward, no entertainment music or dancing, humourless Jihadi...sheesh!!

I doubt he is doing it for the "cause".

What do you think may be the reaction if he were Jewish?

I hold my hand up if I am wrong.

Posted by: Turbinehead at May 17, 2006 1:46 PM

This article has rather changed my view on the film. I'm not a practising Christian, but was brought up in a Christian culture and prefer to see Christianity respected. Nevertheless, I would go accept the "it's only a story" line. But the fact that public money is being used in this way definitely makes me uneasy.

In the link Robert gives, Baehr also says, "This issue shouldn't just be of importance to Christians. Jewish believers also should be concerned about "The Da Vinci Code," which disparages the history of Judaism. In fact, the book accuses ancient Jews of fornicating with prostitutes in the Temple of God."

Hmm ... The plot thickens. Is this "fornication in the temple" shown in the film, too, or is that just in the book?

Mohammed Yusef motives must remain a mystery to us. Whatever they are, this dodgy financial deal with taxpayers' money for a film that, by the sound of it, libels both Christians and Jews seems highly questionable to me.

Say what: I suggest they put in a scene that disparages the Muslim prophet Mohammed as well. Then I will forgive the misuse of public money. Think they'll do it?

Posted by: Yojimbo at May 17, 2006 2:01 PM

Yojimbo says

Say what: I suggest they put in a scene that disparages the Muslim prophet Mohammed as well. Then I will forgive the misuse of public money. Think they'll do it?

After the Mohammed cartoon affair, absolutely not.

What would be poetic justice is if they could find this sort of money to make a big screen version of Salmon Rushdies: Satanic verses.

If they did that I might even find myself not only going to the cinema, I would even buy the DVD version and all the subsequent directors cuts and special editions, even though I personally found the story not that entertaining.

Posted by: km at May 17, 2006 2:12 PM

This is OT, but did everyone see the following item on Roger L. Simon's web site, which presents an item that says Libyan lunatic Muammar Qaddafi had a Jewish mother. I didn't know whether to laugh or vomit when I saw it. Anyway, here is the link:

http://www.rogerlsimon.com/mt-archives/2006/05/department_of_w.php#comments

Posted by: Howard, Fine & Howard at May 17, 2006 2:14 PM

I should worry. The word from Cannes, where the world premiere was held, is that the movie is an overlong, underperformed turkey that will probably bomb. Sir Ian McKellen is said to be the only one of the cast who does anything recognizable as acting. The description of Audrey Tatou as "the last descendant of Christ" got the only reaction of the evening - a loud laugh.

The novel certainly does defame Jews as well as Catholics (it has nothing to say about other Christians). Oddly enough, I cannot see why Muslims should protest at it - although there have been Muslim protests in India - since the idea that Jesus survived the Crucifixion is one of their favourite items. All the same, while I am not in the least surprised about the British government trying to stab Christianity in the back - it is a favourite activity of theirs - I really do not see this as a matter of Jihad. At best, the jihadis will stand back and quietly laugh. This ghastly novel does nothing to strengthen the Muslim corner, although it does a lot to defame and insult Judaism and the strongest of Christian bodies.

Posted by: Paolo at May 17, 2006 2:24 PM

I would even buy the DVD version and all the subsequent directors cuts and special editions, even though I personally found the story not that entertaining.

LOL

I'd like to buy Rushdie a drink.

Being of a conservative bent I never cared for Rushdie's politics nor his apparent lack of gratitude towards his host country. I'd have said at one time that I hoped if I ever moved overseas I would try to fit in better. But in retrospect I now see he was more willing than many to leave much behind him.

Frankly, I feel somewhat guilty for not recognizing just how serious Rushdie's predicament was way back then. To me, Ayatollahs were just guys in funny dress who took themselves too seriously, and it would all blow over.

Posted by: Yojimbo at May 17, 2006 2:30 PM

I'm inclined to agree that this is only a film, not part of the jihad.

However, I'd be interested to learn more about Mohammed Yusuf's Invicta Capital and the rich investors. Is it Sharia compliant? I don't think so.

The substance of this transaction, as with many sale and leaseback arrangements, is a secured loan; the "steady stream of payments", or rather repayments due from Sony include interest as well as capital.

Loan interest is haram.Of course "Sharia compliant" banks and other institutions don't call it interest, but that's what UK accounting standards would call it, and that's what it is.

Posted by: Interested at May 17, 2006 2:40 PM

There are a few steps between coincidence, correlation and causality. But the fundiing of this movie is an intriguing coincidence.

Interested, you said that "Loan interest is haram." Isn't that just between Moslems, or Moslems paying interest to infidels? Hopefully it doesn't apply to your login handle.

Posted by: Chatillon at May 17, 2006 2:58 PM

Isn't that just between Moslems, or Moslems paying interest to infidels?

I'm pretty sure the prohibition applies across the board, at least in theory. In practice, of course, they get round it by devices like the Islamic mortgage.

Hopefully it doesn't apply to your login handle.

Never thought of that. "Interested" is a really boring name - I can't imagine why I picked it - so I often forget I'm using it. But the knowledge that it is haram gives it a bit of spice.

Posted by: Interested at May 17, 2006 3:06 PM

Historically, Western anti-Christian ideology has been part of the larger anti-Western nebula.

This anti-Western nebula has both non-Western, and Western sources. The Western sources of anti-Western ideology are by far the most damaging to the West: without its predominance, non-Western anti-Western ideologies would have little traction in the West.

This symbiosis of anti-Christian ideology and anti-Western ideology has at times been paradoxical: at times in Western history, anti-Christian ideology has helped Western progress.

However, the other part of the paradox is that the anti-Christian sentiment has helped the corrosive effects of Western anti-Western ideology (i.e., homegrown, pathologically excessive self-criticism in the West).

This ideology is currently the principal culprit in the West's inability to recognize, analyze, and defend against, the threat of Islamic jihad.

The Da Vinci code book-&-movie is a highly influential, pop cultural manifestation of the process noted above.

If this Muslim entrepreneur does not know this, he is a pretty dim bulb.

Posted by: Television at May 17, 2006 3:10 PM

The writer Dan Brown, author of the Da Vinci Code, is the son of a retired science teacher at Phillips Exeter. The writer John Irving is the son of a retired history teacher at Phillips Exeter. "Irving" is a name once commonly found among American Jews.

I rest my case.

Posted by: Hugh at May 17, 2006 3:20 PM

I rest my case.

Meaning:

(1) that, despite what Baehr possibly implies, there is nothing to see here? (Likely not, but it's still an improper use of public money, as far as I'm concerned.)

or

(2) that anyone can play the sort of silly nudge-nudge, wink-wink, you-see-the-connection-don't-you games that Dan Brown is playing? It's rather like Graham Hancock finding alignments with the stars for old buildings - there are so many possibilities there you can "find" them anywhere where there is a complex layout of buildings.

Posted by: Yojimbo at May 17, 2006 3:43 PM

What I want to know is when are they going to make the big screen version of Salman Rushdies: Satanic verses.

I wonder how many Muslims will be lining to up to fund that little gem?

Posted by: km at May 17, 2006 3:43 PM

The answer is (3).
Arrived at through the following calculation:

(1) plus (2)* = (3)

* (2) modified. For "Dan Brown is" read "so many besides Dan Brown are"

Posted by: Hugh at May 17, 2006 3:59 PM

ROTFL

Posted by: Yojimbo at May 17, 2006 4:03 PM

I wonder how many people here at JW are anti-Islam for no other reason than it isn't christian.

If I have the right to be opposed to Islam, then I also have the right to be opposed to christianity.

From what I've read, Christianity is virtually identical to Mithraism, a religion which predates christianity by 400 years.

I haven't read the Da Vinci Code, but I have no doubt that a lot of skullduggery occured during the formation of the christian church.

Frankly I don't care if a muslim was involved in the making of this movie. It wasn't a muslim who wrote the book, so why should the movie be demonised because a muslim was involved?

The reason why I'm opposed to Islam is because I want to live in a free secular society where I can live how I wish, not according to anyone's religious dogmas.

Posted by: Voltaire at May 17, 2006 5:00 PM

On a side note,

I've a hard time finding furious Christians calling for Tom Hanks' head and the killing of Audrey Tautou? Where are the masses of Christians waving the Bible sanctioning the death of all those who take part in The Da Vinci Code? Do some Christians find the material objectionable? Certainly. But worth killing for? Nope, that's right, there are none.

Back to the program,

Jan.

Posted by: Jan Vink at May 17, 2006 5:03 PM

The reason why I'm opposed to Islam is because I want to live in a free secular society where I can live how I wish, not according to anyone's religious dogmas.

Posted by: Voltaire

Right on.

Posted by: patriot4 at May 17, 2006 5:05 PM

This is an absurd item to be placed on DW. Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of Islam, realises that the Da Vinci Code is also blasphemous according to Islam.

I love how the conclusion is drawn that this man, is launching a jihad. What evidence? Just because he has a Muslim name? This man is most likely a secular business man, who does not give a sh*t about what Islam has to say on the matter. Just because he promotes the Da Vinci Code makes him a jihadist, and the Brits dhimmi's for permitting this?

Dr Ted Baehr, should investigate before he makes such accusations without proof. And for DW to post this, and give it credence without investigating it, takes away from the academic merit of DW. (Robert did not post this one).

Posted by: Haidon at May 17, 2006 5:22 PM

From what I've read, Christianity is virtually identical to Mithraism, a religion which predates Christianity by 400 years.

Mithraism was a religion of the light, one that sought good and honour, and whose deity was believed to have been born in a stable, around the time of the winter solstice. It's big drawback in the world popularity stakes was that it was a religion purely for men, and mainly soldiers at that.
There was no place in it for women. Not that women were evil or inferior, but they had godesses to worship, and were expected to get on with it elsewhere.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at May 17, 2006 5:25 PM

Whole lot of people taking all kinds of things seriously. Goodness. Time to go read Harpo Marx's autobiography again, or Robert Benchley, to refresh my spirits.

Posted by: Hugh at May 17, 2006 5:35 PM

This is slightly off topic, but I sent an email to CAIR yesterday asking for a Koran so that I could do some due diligence before making my donation. (they ask for donations on their site)

Here is the text of that email. I don't expect a reply:

I just found theses sites on islam.

http://www.theres-something-about-islam.blogspot.com
http://www.jihadwatch.org
http;//www.faithfreedom.org

Check them out.

Also please send me a Koran, I want to know more. Some say the Koran has verses advocating murder, mayhem and terror. I need to confirm for myself that there are no verses with anything like that in them. You now, due diligence. Once I have read the whole book, and nothing like that was written in it, I would like to donate to CAIR to help promote multicultural understanding.

I believe that all muslims and Christians should live in peace with muslims converting Christians and of course, Christians converting muslims. I believe an exchange of converts is good. I'm sure you feel the same way.

I also believe that sharia law, like terrorism, does not represent true islam. No true muslim can approve of any violent act against women or non-muslims as part of a religous tenet. True islam is about loving everybody and promoting women to equality with men. Wearing the burka, therefore, is not true islam. It has been distorted by a few extremists. I know that CAIR would never support such a thing and is working to ban such oppression in American muslim communities.

True islam believes in respecting the laws and mores of other cultures and would never seek to subjugate those laws. True islam would never seek to impose itself on any other culture or nation. While Mohammad did call for islam to dominate all other faiths, this was not true islam. Being a mortal man, he too said things in anger I'm sure he regretted, as we all do. I know that muslims would never work toward such a goal and reject this side of mohammad, as islam is a religion of peace. If such things are in the Koran, all good muslims categorically reject them. A muslim would rather become a Christian than worship anyone that would promote violence in any way. I know many muslims, and this is so. Indeed, I had a muslim friend who converted to Christianity because he said he could not follow such teachings. So that proves that muslims have good consciences. I'm sure some Christians convert the other way, not nearly as many of course, but there must be some. I know that islam does well in the prison system with violent criminals and rapists. They identify with islamic teachings. So they must see something they like in the Koran. It's good to see that CAIR has an outreach program in the prisons.

So once I recieve this Koran, and examine it carefully, and nothing hateful or anything calling for violence against non-muslims in any of its doctrine, I shall make my donation to CAIR.

Thank you and good day.

LOL

Posted by: somethingaboutislam at May 17, 2006 5:52 PM

somethingaboutislam:

love the letter! You did use a p.o. address and a fake name, right?

Posted by: 3812Michelle at May 17, 2006 6:02 PM

I sayeth: A pox on both their houses.

Adherence to religion, benign or otherwise, is the most useful litmus-test any rational person has for immediately identifying people who won't think, couldn't think in they tried, who find elementary logic wholly alien, are whom are likely to advocate all manner of policy propositions antithetical to individual rights and liberties.

Christianity is, presently, roughly broken up into two camps:

* Prudish, Victorian evengelicals whose attitudes toward the more enjoyable aspects of living aren't horribly far removed from the Taliban (albeit they're not about to outright murder anyone yet...unless that poor perp breaks one of their political crimes against various consensual activities, and "resists arrest" -- then, well, "the Law is the Law!" declare the Hitler Youth. And, because God said "go forth and multiply", any woman who aspires to control of her own body rather than being a breeding machine, why, she'll be learn't right-quick in the New Order.

* Puddin' head pacifist basketcases who wilt at the imagery of firearms, yet would authorize a collectivist Leviathan to loot everyone's pockets to redistribute the assets to "alleviate suffering" (again, with armed police to enforce the mandatory collections). Because, of course, their Shiny, Happy, Benevolent God rewards those who alleviate suffering even if that requires coveting and stealing the property of rich, evil Scrooges in order to fund. And besides, it's much easier on the conscience to slide by with such an agenda in the 21st century by imagining yourself as a "Christian" rather than as a "Socialist" or other commie-looter variant term.

-- There's really no solution to this cyclical percentage over-load of morons bred up in times of peace and protected for generations from incremental consequences of their own stupidity by theft-financed "safety nets" other than the time-honored tradition of technomages prudently getting out of the way while the idiots go to war, every half century or so, and cull their chromozomes from the genome until the stupidity quotient has regressed to the mean.

Posted by: Mike Schneider at May 17, 2006 6:03 PM

Harpo Speaks!

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at May 17, 2006 6:04 PM

Dan Brown is an idiot who hangs upside down. You can't get much more idiotic than that.

According to Charles Moore in The Spectator - subscription required, but blogged here - the book is yet another example of how hilarious Americans can be when they get England wrong. Which they do. And vice versa, of course, but who cares about that?

Spectator readers... can judge the authenticity of the book just by following its British references. Sir Leigh speaks sometimes in a ‘thick English accent’ and sometimes in ‘highbrow British’. When he flies with lovely Sophie to Britain in a private plane over the ‘misty hills of Kent’, he gets her through immigration because he has been knighted (‘Membership has its privileges’). He carries ‘an embossed card identifying him as a Knight of the Realm’, which causes security guards to let him in everywhere. Sir Leigh orders his driver Remy to park in Horse Guards Parade. There he poisons him with peanut butter, leaves his corpse in the car and strolls off to Westminster Abbey, where he tries to shoot the hero (Tom Hanks) in the Chapter House. Brown’s understanding of church history is as good as his knowledge of the British class system and of parking in central London.

Posted by: Interested at May 17, 2006 6:23 PM

Michelle, I sent an email. I did not use my real name nor did I give an address. I want to see if they respond first. Which they won't. I think they got the jist of that letter. LOL.

Cheers

Posted by: somethingaboutislam at May 17, 2006 6:29 PM

Haidon: "Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of Islam, realises that the Da Vinci Code is also blasphemous according to Islam."

Yes - that's what I thought too. It will be very interesting to see whether most Muslims boycott the film.

Posted by: Caroline at May 17, 2006 7:08 PM

Michelle...he used your name and address. So rest assured, he's safe. Now you can sleep well tonight.

Posted by: SCV at May 17, 2006 7:25 PM

Caroline, if muslims find the film offensive, they'll be doing a lot more than boycotting the film.

Will they start going psycho like they did when the Danish cartoons were printed?

Let's hope so. I could do with the entertainment of watching muslims killing each other because their sensibilites have been offended.

Posted by: Voltaire at May 17, 2006 7:32 PM

It Matters Not

Jesus Christos, married or celibate,
it matters not, what matters is His message,
His love and compassion for all mankind
to give His life for our sins,
to bring to us water and wine for our thirst,
loaves and fishes, for our spiritual hunger,
to bring us the Holy Spirit, the Comforter,
to show us the Way to our Heavenly Home.
Married or celibate, it matters not.
Does it change His gift to us?

And who ever believes in Him (and his Way)
shall not perish but have Life Everlasting.

Posted by: the poetess at May 17, 2006 7:36 PM

Folks,

This posting should interest yous about this much talked about movie, " The DaVinci Code". In Egypt the movies censor board is looking at banning the movie. Two other Arab nations, Jordan and Lebannon are looking at doing the same thing. Yet, five other Arab nations are going to show the movie, Bahrain, Oman, Kuwait, Qatar, and UAE, which is a suprise because of the issue of Muslim "respect " for Jesus. Isreal also is planning to have the movie play in its moviehouses.

Here an URL :

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/middleeastreports/s_453828.html

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at May 17, 2006 7:44 PM

Look at it this way. If Christ's children were still walking the face of the earth, Muslims would want to get them for apostasy, since Jesus was, according to them, a Muslim, and instead, his descendents apostatize from Islam to Christianity.

Since Muslims (Mohammed included) haven't spent the last 1400 years hunting them down, either they have been derelict in their task of hunting down these evil infidel descendents, or they believe this whole claim is false, and therefore insults Issa. As a result, death to Dan Brown.

I know what Paolo was saying above - since Issa didn't get cricified, what's wrong with what Dan Brown wrote? But if what he wrote was right, Muslims have been letting a major clan of apostates get away.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 17, 2006 7:45 PM

Haidon,

"This is an absurd item to be placed on DW. Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of Islam, realises that the Da Vinci Code is also blasphemous according to Islam.

I love how the conclusion is drawn that this man, is launching a jihad. What evidence? Just because he has a Muslim name? This man is most likely a secular business man, who does not give a sh*t about what Islam has to say on the matter. Just because he promotes the Da Vinci Code makes him a jihadist, and the Brits dhimmi's for permitting this?

Dr Ted Baehr, should investigate before he makes such accusations without proof. And for DW to post this, and give it credence without investigating it, takes away from the academic merit of DW. (Robert did not post this one). "

Please read the above post that I have posted right before this post and be ready for a suprise.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at May 17, 2006 7:48 PM

Infidel Pride,

Please read the above post that I have posted that there are 5 Arab/Muslim nations that are going to show the movie. Very suprising.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at May 17, 2006 7:50 PM

In a yahoo history group I once joined they did nothing but talk about the da Vinci code for weeks but mainly because it raised so many obscure topics in early christian, dark age and mediaeval history. It had motivated some of them to go back and read their Gibbon. Nobody actually took it seriously and that probably goes for the vast majority of the population - it was just a fantasy historical whodunnit. On the other hand, given how little we're told about her, Mary Magdalen does turn up at some rather important moments in the gospels ....

Posted by: wallyUK at May 17, 2006 7:54 PM

i read the first part of a 3 part story yesterday that jesus died in india,cant find it today.here is a website on it though

http://www.tombofjesus.com/home.htm

Posted by: patriot4 at May 17, 2006 8:02 PM

bigcatgirl13106

Looks like this is one of the few bones that these Islamic regimes can give to their Christians. Therefore, one sees that in countries that have a Christian minority - Egypt, Lebanon and Jordan (presumably Palestinian Christians), there is talk of a ban, while in the Bahrain, Oman, Kuwait, Qatar, and UAE, nothing to lose by showing it, except there goes my theory. Of these 5, Qatar is a Wahabi country, so that says what the Islamic orthodoxy might have to say about it. What's the decision of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Hamas and Iran?

In India, looks like it's not going to be banned - a surprising decision, given that the only people the government there was talking to was the Catholics, who could have shot it down if they wanted. Obviously, there, the opinion of Muslims was deemed irrelevant - a good decision IMO.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 17, 2006 8:15 PM

Re the issue of whether Muslim countries do or do not ban the film out of supposed "respect" for the "prophet Jesus": Even if not a single Muslim in the word went to see the film - what of it? What sort of respect is it ultimately when one declines to depict Jesus' face out of so-called respect, while at the same time having no problem with murdering and/or enslaving his followers? Sorry - but's that not "respect" for Jesus. I'd much rather Muslims went to the film in droves but allowed real live Christians (not to confused with celluloid images) to live in peace.

Posted by: Caroline at May 17, 2006 8:47 PM

Infidel Pride, I am glad they are not banning it in India; from what I hear the movie is a class one bomb. If the Censor board had gone ahead and banned there will be that much more of a demand for the pirated DVDs.

Posted by: ivan at May 17, 2006 8:49 PM

Infidel Pride,

In truth, the banning in Egypt, Lebannon, and Jordan have more to do with keeping the peace in the Christian minority communities, the first because of the recent riots in Alexandria, Egypt in the Coptic community. Also about those five Arab natiions in question, it could be because the gnostic stuff of Jesus sadly has made its way into the Koran in the history of the Muslim faith, so no suprise there.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at May 17, 2006 9:27 PM

If someone were making a film in an Islamic country debunking Mohammad and I could bankroll it to make a buck, would I?

Faster than grease through a goose.

So why shouldn't a canny Muslim businessman prey on the sloppy theology of the infidels when they make a thriller out of gnostic rumor?

The only problem might be if some of the proceeds of the Brit investors are secretly funneled toward jihadis.

It would be worth keeping an eye on, to see if the worry of this article's author has any basis.

In my case, I have better things to do than throw money at psychotic theocratic crapulous pus-filled scum-sucking maniacs.

But, if any former-Muslim apostate wants to work on the first-mentioned project, I'll gladly work up a spec script / treatment for the REAL dangerous religious thriller:

"THE KA'ABA KODE".

In which the kidnapped and forever-after disappeared from history only-surviving son of Mohammad (all the rest of his male offspring evidently died in childhood... perhaps [cue ominous soundtrack music... aoud optional] poisoned by deposed Meccan polytheists who stilled worshipped the original Moon God Al-lah?) is found to have been raised as a Christian in Sardinia, and whose heirs are now a prominent clerical clan in Italy and France.

Then the oldest male patriarch (named "Italo Morrisconi") of this family is suddenly contacted by an eccentric, apparently-peaceful Sufi scholar -who has traced his true geneology from newly unearthed papyrus documents in Egypt, written the 7th century kidnappers.

(The Lindbergh Baby Meets the Omen?)

What will Mohammad's only true male direct heir do?

And how many theaters will be burned to the ground when it debuts?

And what type of Kevlar vest would I need for the Cannes premiere?

Contact me with any sub rosa funding through this site.

(I have the perfect nom de guerre for the script in mind, not being of a suicidal bent .)

Islam is far more secretive, arcane and conspiratorial than anything the Christains would dare dream of... even in their wildest Da Fictions.

And what is that 'black stone' -that was originally white- in the Ka'aba, really?

Posted by: profitsbeard at May 17, 2006 9:53 PM

Haidon: "Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of Islam, realises that the Da Vinci Code is also blasphemous according to Islam."

Caroline: Yes - that's what I thought too"

Wrong. Why would Muslims find blasphemous a book that accuses Trinitarians -- whom Muslims find guilty of some of the worst spiritual evil (joining "associates" to God) and deserving of jihad violence in this life, and eternal Hellfire in the next life -- of manipulating geopolitics and controlling the world for their evil ends? It would be of a piece with the Muslim penchant for finding a similarly evil Macchiavellian machination in the Jews. Dan Brown's book and Opie's movie are just one more confirmation that the evil West is exerting its evil in sinister ways: such a premise is sure to warm the cockles of any good Muslim, not exercise their indignation at any "blasphemy".

Posted by: Television at May 17, 2006 10:12 PM

Just because the Evangelical poster does not like the movie since she believes it attacks her Christianity (as if we care anyway since we are here to talk about Islam), she weakens this site by posting such an irrelevant posting. However, it is to be expected since this site is clearly a Christian one with its repeated messages of rejecting, among other things: “relativism” (as if we are to see biblical statements as ‘truths’ as opposed to say, scientifically proven non-biblical facts) and relentless comments about the presumed the inability of Western societies to combat Islam (due to an apparent weakness that only believing in a man-god would change). RUBBISH.

This is an extraordinarily (ridiculously) religious Christian nation already (the US). I don’t see the US acting any differently than the EU on such issues as Moslem immigration. Why isn’t your man-god directing (through prayers) your numerous Christian senators, representatives and executive branch zealots to stop the suicidal demographic trouble ahead by changing immigration rules for certain nations? Ill tell you why. Christians are so delusional with their stupid religion they cannot combat Islam. They are the ones that believed the Moslems to be “brothers in belief” to combat the communists. Christians are so irrational that they believe their own lie: that Moslems will "see the light" and come to follow your man-god. You own dumb pope wants Moslems to be welcomed to Italy. Christians are not the answer. They are moronic ‘turn the other cheek’ Cardinal Mahoney types. We need tough secularists to fight Islam, not people who believe we can appease the Moslems with the ‘love of Christ.’

And so who cares if the promoter of a dumb movie happens to be a Moslem or has an Arab name?

You wonder why some accuse of here of being hysterical about Islam. Lets focus on the real issues, not a dumb movie that offends radical Christianists. Please don’t post such articles in future.

Posted by: Kafir Nonbeliever at May 17, 2006 10:14 PM

Good point Television. I understand what you are getting at. Some Muslims may not see Jesus being attacked, but the Christian world generally. Many Muslims ould undoubtedly like to see Christianity discredited, irrespective of whether it invokes Jesus.

However because the imagery and understanding of Jesus (Isa in Islam) is being questioned, most Muslim, myself included, should view this as blasphemy. The theory constructed is completely contrary to the Muslim view that Jesus ascended into heaven prior to his crucifixion.

Some Muslims will view this as blasphemy and boycott the movie, others will embrace it. But I think the gand majority of Muslims will stay away from this one.

Posted by: Haidon at May 17, 2006 10:29 PM

> Harpo Speaks!

"Laffa while you can, Monkey-boy!"

It's going to get a whole lot worse before it gets any better -- if it ever gets better at all before millions of people are dead.

Posted by: Mike Schneider at May 17, 2006 10:48 PM

"Christians are so delusional with their stupid religion they cannot combat Islam."

This is a ridiculous statement easily refuted by merely a casual look at history:

1) when the West was far more Christian than it is now, it was -- during the Crusades -- able to name their enemy without PC euphemisms and muster armies to counter-attack that Muslim enemy

2) earlier, at the Battle of Tours, European communities (there really weren't "nations" in the 8th century A.D.) -- who were far more Christian than any today -- mustered a coalition of armies to fight and push back the advance of Muslim armies into the heart of Europe

3) a few centuries later, in 1492, when Europe was still far more Christian than it is today, Christian armies finally kicked Muslims out of Spain

4) a little less than a century later, when Europe was still far more Christian than it is today, it fought the great battle of Lepanto against Muslims; and so on.

By the way, I am an agnostic; but I don't feel it necessary to base my agnosticism on a blatant ignorance of history.

Posted by: Television at May 17, 2006 11:04 PM

Haidon,

"because the imagery and understanding of Jesus (Isa in Islam) is being questioned, most Muslim, myself included, should view this as blasphemy."

You're still missing the point. Muslims believe that Christianity (all three main branches, Catholic, Orthodox and mainstream Protestant) has been for centuries purveying a distorted and blasphemous image of Jesus: thus, to the ordinary Muslim, Christianity has been behaving far more blasphemously -- with a lot more power, money and influence -- than Dan Brown (even more power, money and influence than blockbuster director Ron Howard and the "Jewish Hollywood" money machine of which he is a part).

Secondly, Dan Brown himself is not disparaging Jesus: he is showing how the Catholic Church is disparaging Jesus. And that message, as I say, is sure to warm the cockles of good Muslims everywhere (not to mention the cockles of good Leftists and not a few ultra-right tinfoil hat wearers).

Posted by: Television at May 17, 2006 11:12 PM

One poster above says that the US is Christian. One could say the same about Australia.

What a load of rot! These countries have not been practicing Christian in the main for over half a century. The 'science' of evolution has seen to that - that golden calf of the athiest foundation.

If our countries were Christian why are there so many Gay's in politcial power. At least 3/10 of our Queensland senators is Gay; with an equal representation in the lower house. Yep, die hard Christians would really elect those who fundamentally disagree with them so much!

When I started state school - we'd start with Christian prayer. By the time I'd finished school if a teacher said a Christian prayer to themself in ear shot they'd loose their job at worst; at best be reprimanded.

Our countries are no longer Christian. As a country we have told the Judeo-Christian God to get lost. So being the polite fellow he is - he did.

The West is:

1) Majority athiest
2) With a sizeable Christian population
3) And a VERY fast growing Muslim population.

Robert has every right to publish this. THe very fact that a Mohammed peadophile financed the movie is in stark contrast to the Danish cartoons.

It is yet another example of the Christian hating group in our Western society - as is Mike Schneider post above.

It is this lack of unbaised understanding of our past; this self hating of our past; that is driving the future Islamic nature of our countries.

Posted by: 3rdtimelucky at May 17, 2006 11:30 PM

Infidel Pride,

"Of these 5, Qatar is a Wahabi country, so that says what the Islamic orthodoxy might have to say about it. "

In other words, a thought comes to my mine, that Qatar is really then "Wahabi" Lite. Also the homebase of Al Jazzeria TV news network, the Middle Eastern verson of CNN.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at May 17, 2006 11:37 PM

3xlucky,

I think Kafir's beef is mostly with some of those bible-bashing, organized US-religion/moral-majority types. I don't think we have many of them in Australia. There are some real oddballs in the states, some miracle-'healers' and those who speak 'in tongues'- some real fraudsters who have been caught and went to jail, but there seem to be still many who have large followings. I don't think there is much of that in the major cities, though. That means Kafir must have had some bad encounters with some of them while living in the bible belt.

Some of the other stuff he posted is quite on the money, though:

"...stop the suicidal demographic trouble ahead by changing immigration rules for certain nations? Ill tell you why. Christians are so delusional with their stupid religion they cannot combat Islam. They are the ones that believed the Moslems to be “brothers in belief” to combat the communists. Christians are so irrational that they believe their own lie: that Moslems will "see the light" and come to follow your man-god. You own dumb pope wants Moslems to be welcomed to Italy. Christians are not the answer. They are moronic ‘turn the other cheek’ Cardinal Mahoney types. We need tough secularists to fight Islam, not people who believe we can appease the Moslems with the ‘love of Christ.’

I back you on this, Kafir. Right on!

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at May 18, 2006 12:15 AM

sheik, you quote approvingly "Christians are so delusional with their stupid religion they cannot combat Islam."

Perhaps you skipped over my previous post; perhaps my previous post was too verbose. I'll boil it down to a nutshell:

Christians fought Muslims for centuries, often winning major battles (Tours, Spain 1492, Lepanto, Vienna). The simple facts of history easily refute such a stupid statement as the one you quoted with approval.

Posted by: Television at May 18, 2006 12:47 AM

Paolo
'This ghastly novel does nothing to strengthen the Muslim corner, although it does a lot to defame and insult Judaism and the strongest of Christian bodies.'

On the contrary any weakening of Christianity through attack weakens further our own morals and the resolve to fight for our judeo christian principles on which lies our western civilisation.
The more we lose our morality the easier it will be for muslims to destroy our society.
The film is another bonus for Islam.
it has always been Christianity that has given us the will to enable our defence against islamic invasion in the past.
do you really think the tortuous leftist philosophy tha has replaced rigion in modern "enlightened" man can ever reproduce that resolve?

Posted by: chevalier de st george at May 18, 2006 1:17 AM

Chevalier - look at the braying of Kafir Nonbeliever, Mike Schneider and the other twerp whose name I cannot be bothered to check, on this thread, and see what we are up against. "Judeo-Christian heritage?" With abortion available on demand in virtually every country in the west, and euthanasia coming up fast? And morons of this kind disposed to use every fair or foul means to repress anything that suggests to them that someone disagrees with them? (It is interesting how this kind of unreasoning hater always proclaims the "rationality" and "reason" of their atheist nonsense. I guess that Plato really was right: people love, even worship, what they do not have.)

Sorry. I have just had a major row with a Dutchwoman who could not see why I thought euthanasia an abomination and her country a plague spot. Then I come here and find the same kind of creep raging up and down the thread. I am rather tired of having to defend, not even Christianity, but simple common sense - as Television, who is not a Christian, is finding out.

Posted by: Paolo at May 18, 2006 1:55 AM

poetess -

You don't know WHAT you are talking about!!! What a foolish thing to say -- that it doesn't matter whether or not Jesus was married or not. Of course it matters! Since when don't "lies" matter?!?

Jesus Christ is to be revered as the Son of God; not made out to be like an average human being.

Posted by: champ at May 18, 2006 1:56 AM

TV & Chevalier,

The past is the past. The church was powerful, if not omnipotent and Bishops were actually waging war. In the past, people could easily unite "under God & country" to defend against the onslaught of the musulman.

We have moved on since then, sorry. There is a vacuum where religion used to be, which has not been replaced by fashion & consumerism. But religion, with the impact it had in the past, is gone and it won't be back. No way.

Kafir is quite right when he sez that the church(es) are actually encouraging and supporting Mohammedan infiltration and that is wrong and that was the essence of his post, would you not agree?

The abortion issue along with euthanasia (Paolo's preferred subject) was not Kafir's claim and should not affect this debate.

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at May 18, 2006 4:02 AM

paolo son d'accordo con lei.

The Hideous arrogance of late 18th and 2Oth century made the assasination of morality possible, a morality wjicj had for better or for worse restrained man from commiting even worse evil than he had done.
The Downfall od religion led the to the abandonment of morality and its replacement with man made theories and the notions that it was Man himself who had become GOD. That religion was na absurd throw back to neanderthal man.
the idiocy that we no longer required faith to cement firmly our notions within ourselves of what was right and what was wrong.
Then the dictators made full use of the loosely held moralities of secularism in the use of easlily believed propaganda to further thier nefarious aims. Hitler and Stalin both benefited in the new secularism to turn human beings into uncaring killing machines on a scale never seen before in the days when the notions of good and evil were fimly set in the human psyche by religious faith.
It is indeed an awful story and one that as led us into the corrupt nihilism that so meant worship today.

Posted by: chevalier de st george at May 18, 2006 5:47 AM

And paulo
I am not religious, i do not believe in GOD, but even i can see that religion has been the Barrier that halts our descent into Dante's inferno!- whatever horrors have been commited in its name.
Man has not yet evolved to a stage advanced enough to replace it.

Posted by: chevalier de st george at May 18, 2006 5:52 AM

Yojimbo: Re _DaVinci Code_ accusing Jews of using prostitutes in the Temple, I don't recall such an accusation being made in the book--albeit I read the book about a year ago, didn't like it, and took it down to the recycler after one reading. _DaVinci Code_ is just a knock-off on an older book, _Holy Blood, Holy Grail_ which proposed that Europe's royalty descends from Jesus' offspring by Mary Magadalene; and is hence perhaps the purest example of sheer hooey ever fobbed off on a gullible public.

However, re the Temple being used for prosttution, the prophets of the Old Testament accuse the people of polluting the Temple with all manner of heathen customs and cults. There are also passages mentioning people using cult prostitutes, although the practice is clearly frowned on.

Voltaire, I'd be interesgted in knowing where I could get a copy of the Mithraist Bible in order to compare it with the Christian one. Also, when I had my sons baptized, it was with water; not with the blood of a bull.

Posted by: Kepha at May 18, 2006 7:17 AM

Turbinehead I'm confused as to how u think that if we stop giving money to muslims we in the UK would starve? Think you've got your wires crossed there.

Posted by: DaveMate at May 18, 2006 7:45 AM

No wire crossed here.
Humour.....DaveMate.
Britain's Favourite food.....Chicken Tikka.

And just so you know I am not a racist. I am not anti-muslim. I believe in the defence of freedom of speech and am against all forms of Fascism.

I think we share a common distaste of the Islamic variety?

Posted by: Turbinehead at May 18, 2006 8:12 AM

What joy! Dumbowatch can push this story from two angles: Evil muslims are funding and promoting the film to attack Christianity (story posted above)
"We must resist this evil islamic attack on our religion, core beliefs and foundation of our civilization"

and evil Muslims are seeking to attack freedom of speech and impose dictatorship by calling for the film's ban (stories below).

"We must resist this evil islamic attack on our
traditions of freedom of speech and right to blaspheme"

-------------------------------------------------

Indian Muslims Join Attack on 'The Da Vinci Code'

The Da Vinci CodeLATEST: Muslims in India have pledged their support to the recent protests by Roman Catholics over the release of The Da Vinci Code movie. Hundreds of Catholics gathered in Mumbai last week ahead of the release of the "blasphemous" film, which spreads "lies" about Jesus Christ.

The movie, adapted from Dan Brown's best-selling novel, explores a theory that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and produced a bloodline.

Maulana Mansoor Ali Khan, general secretary of the All-India Sunni Jamiyat-ul-Ulema, says, "The Holy Koran recognises Jesus as a prophet. What the book says is an insult to both Christians and Muslims. Muslims in India will help their Christian brothers protest this attack on our common religious belief."
http://www.starpulse.com/news/index.php/2006/05/16/indian_muslims_join_attack_on_the_da_vin

Russian Muslims Demand Banning “Da Vinci Code” Movie, Novel
http://www.mosnews.com/news/2006/05/18/muslimcode.shtml

Muslims in Azerbaijan protest 'Da Vinci Code'
http://www.bakutoday.net/view.php?d=20948

Muslims support ‘The Da Vinci Code’ protest
http://indiaenews.com/2006-05/8256-muslims-the-da-vinci-code-protest.htm

Posted by: truth speaker at May 18, 2006 8:20 AM

I'll agree with those who say that we can't go back. Christianity was strong once in the western world but that is history now. Trying to turn back the clock to how Europe was like before at, say, the enlightenment in the 18.th century is impossible and futile. Chirstianity was strong as long as peopel could truly believe in it's dogmas, something which the fewest peopel, even those who call themselves christians, can do today.

You don't fight the irrationality of Islam with another irrationality, unless of course that irrationality is even more aggressive and totalitarian than Islam itself. And I don't find that raw aggression in the christian faith, especially not amongst the whimpy clerics of today.

If anything we would do ourselves a favor by abolishing Christianity completely, it's a millstone around our necks.

Either we create a brand new religion/ideology or we simply have to force a reformation of Islam through here in the west, like it happened for christianity, that's the only to real choices we have as I see it.

Posted by: seville844 at May 18, 2006 9:09 AM

truth speaker ,

Would it suprise you that India is going to allow for the " The DaVinci Code " movie to be shown?

Would it suprise you that up to five Arab/Muslim countries are going to allow for the showing of "TDVC" movie itself? Here are the five countries : Bahrain, Oman, Kuwait, Qatar, and UAE.

There are a lot of contradictions found here.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at May 18, 2006 9:36 AM

bigcatgirl13106

In the main papers, no mention of any Muslim protests. However, it has been cleared as an "adults-only" movie. Wonder how.

You may be right about Qatar, but I recall the March 2003 issue of National Geographic that mentioned that this was the only Wahabi country in the world, other than Saudi Arabia. I tried digging it up, but National Geographic doesn't seem to carry the full article in their archives even long after the issue is dead and buried.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 18, 2006 12:45 PM

sheik,

"Kafir is quite right when he sez that the church(es) are actually encouraging and supporting Mohammedan infiltration and that is wrong and that was the essence of his post, would you not agree?"

Yes, Western Christians by and large (with a few exceptions) have become deformed by the PC ideology. What I objected to was the blanket statement that implied that Christians qua Christians are incapable of defending against Islam, when history shows the opposite. History would indicate that when Christians are more Christian, they have been able to defend themselves quite adequately (pedagogically and militarily) against Islam. It is arguable that the reason Christians are behaving so impotently in the face of Islam nowadays is that, as I said above, they are deformed by PC ideology -- which, among other things, makes them less Christian per se.

Posted by: Television at May 18, 2006 1:47 PM

Some psychotic nutcase wrote:

The 'science' of evolution has seen to that - that golden calf of the athiest foundation.

Folx should word-scan this page for "mike", and catch my first post here on this subject. Note that this fellow falls solidly into the first category detailed.

If our countries were Christian why are there so many Gay's in politcial power.

Because all the witless, axe-wielding Carrie Nations, a century ago, used their political power to bloat out government into a corpulent "morality-enforcing" leviathon. Once the monster was unleashed, it became increasingly attractive to the designs of more subtle, patient and cunning brands of evil.

Your retort is simply gross hypocrisy: Your ideas of "power", and ramming it down other peoples' throats, are EXACTLY THE SAME as those sly cads in Europe and elsewhere who'd happilly use "democracy" to bully their way over electoral minorities.

All the differences are matters of scale and degree; otherwise, the animating principles of collectivist subordination of individuality are the same. E.g., your idea of a "Christian country" is one in which my money is plundered to fund state-run indocrination camps called "schools" in which the larvea of the species are held captive for twelve years of their lives until all the appropriate mantras are chanted on queue -- similar in principle to your typical madrassa, which only variations in course material.

------------

Western socialist democratic governments are diseased, lethargic, dying animals; and Islamists are lean, hungry, efficient herd-culling predators.

Presently, the US dollar has hyper-inflated versus gold by a factor of 100% in one short year (and is the reason gasoline is back to last year's hurricane levels), as the government cranks the printing-presses to pay for the war.

Q. How long do you think a war of attrition can last when one side sacrifices expendable men and the other side trillions of dollars worth of its citizens productivity?

------------

I am reminded of the old video-arcade game Gauntlet in which a troop of fantasy heroes battled hordes of "generator"-spawned monsters in a dungeon. The way to win, of course, was the destroy the generators; if you didn't, they would spawn monstors endlessly.

Yet no Western government would dare destroy a mosque, let alone contemplate alarmist notions of converting the Kabah into a crater.

Posted by: Mike Schneider at May 18, 2006 2:06 PM

Sofia,

I can only imagine that Haidon is helpfully issuing a warning for the future, viz., he wants to warn us that when Muslims feel strong enough they will express their displeasure at anything that does not match precisely with their doctrines. Christianity itself would, of course, not. (Caroline already made that point.) Yes, in time, that would be so. The historical record reminds us of that. Silence those church bells, which remind of Christianity. Yes, it may come, if we do not call a halt. But the outrages we have seen on the streets worldwide over the Mohammed cartoons, for example, have not taken place out of formal considerations of theology but out of wounded pride and to give an earnest of an intent to dominate.

Moreover, Muslims may be absolutists but they are also pragmatists. At times they seem to have discouraged conversion, because that would reduce the money they were getting via jizya payments. Consider also the following:

As for the Jews expelled from Spain, they were invited by the Sultan not because of any motivations involving tolerance, but to replace the vast swathes of Christians that had been eliminated and thus to maintian the area's commerce and the Sultan's tax base

So it's not as simple as all that, and cannot be understood in purely formal terms. At the moment, in the minority in Western countries as yet, even the true believers definitely tend towards pragmatism. They only attack where they are on firm ground. They might picket a bookshop that stocked a journal that reprinted those cartoons; they'd wouldn't raise a complaint at the same shop's stocking a manual of pork butchery. Not yet.

In my view, the Da Vinci code is unlikely to upset many Muslims on the grounds that it doesn't precisely match their doctrines. Where they are in the majority a stricter view might prevail, not not, I suggest, where they are not. We shall see, but that is my prediction. Insofar as it upsets Christians, or Roman Catholics at any rate - because it shows their church as liars and murderers - then I daresay that Muslim extremists would see that as a good thing rather than a bad.

But I think Hugh is right: there is nothing here to see. There's no plot.

Posted by: Yojimbo at May 18, 2006 2:13 PM

Dear Haidon,

I ma not responsible for other people's opinions including Dr. Baehr's.

I did think this would make an interesting topic of conversation and I believe I was right about that. Gray areas are often the most interesting to explore.

Rebecca

Posted by: Rebecca JW at May 18, 2006 2:51 PM

"In my view, the Da Vinci code is unlikely to upset many Muslims on the grounds that it doesn't precisely match their doctrines."

The issue isn't whether Muslims will be offended by The Da Vinci Code, but why Muslims will be warmed by its ludicrous message.

The implicit message of The Da Vinci Code -- that the West is ruled by an evil cabal emanating out of an evil symbiosis of Masonic/Illuminati/Jewish forces out to control the world -- is more likely to warm Muslim hearts by playing to their anti-Western feelings and their paranoid fantasies. And that plot is relevant.

Posted by: Television at May 18, 2006 3:12 PM

And Kafir N., I ma very glad to see you in such fine form. Evangelical am I? That's news.

Posted by: Rebecca JW at May 18, 2006 3:28 PM

1) What in God's name does the "Da Vinci Code" have to do with Jihad or Islamic imperialism?

2) Why does the notion that Christ may have had an ordinary life with a woman, children and brothers and sisters seems to offend anyone?

Don't make the mistake of taking Dan Brown's novel as history. It is a good book, but one with many inacuracies (someone from Opus Dei already pointed out several of them in an article).

Read, read and when you think you have read enough, read some more. Learn to think for yourself. I will give you two hints: think about the story of Abraham (and his son Isaac), and know that in Jesus' time, it was unthinkable for a man in his 30s not to be married and with children. A Jesus without children would never have become a leader, he would have been made fun of either as an impotent or as a homossexual.

The Old Testament is not a history book and neither are the Gospels, in fact they often contradict themselves. They are books of faith and should be regarded as such.

Now you tell me: does the fact that Jesus might have had brothers, sisters and children make him a lesser figure? To me it does not, quite the opposite. In fact, I only find it more amazing that 2000 years ago a man would speak of showing the other cheek in face of aggression, when 1400 years ago another man spoke about cutting people's body parts for theft.

Posted by: cruzado at May 18, 2006 3:32 PM

Doesn't anybody think it's ironic the British taxpayers are underwriting an attack upon the "faith of the realm?"

And I see two sides of the dhimmi mentality here -on the one hand, is a growing "respect" for Islam (whether real of feigned doesn't matter) and on the other hand a growing "disrespect" for the "faith of our fathers." I think these two attitudes are linked and the erosion of Christianity opens the door to Islam.

So I do not think the answer to Islam lies in extinguishing Christianity, though I am not a church going person myself. (I say this just to clarify my position for Kafir Non-believer.)

Posted by: Rebecca JW at May 18, 2006 4:08 PM

cruzado,

Have a question. Have you ever heard of a group of Jews who were around at the time of Jesus who became famous for the putting together what became "The Dead Sea Scrolls", callled the essenes?

They practiced a form of lifestyle like what we would see today in Christian monks. Most likely they were not married, so they can do what they did, write Bible and spiritual book scrolls.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at May 18, 2006 4:25 PM

cruzado,

PS : Most likely Jesus adopted that type of life, staying single, like what the essenes did.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at May 18, 2006 4:26 PM

Bigcatgirl,

Or, Jesus consciously decided not to leave children because he knew human nature well enough to know it would invariably lead to undue reverence of them, and as they would be fallible human beings, this could set up a disastrous situation. I also think it's interesting Jesus left nothing in writing behind although he was a very learned man thoroughly versed in scripture, probably for the same reasons.

Posted by: Rebecca JW at May 18, 2006 4:40 PM

Rebecca JW,

Also got to take into consideration that Jesus did what the prophets did in the OT, travel around the country and it did not leave time for a wife and children.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at May 18, 2006 5:03 PM

Dear Rebecca

Fair enough.

Interestingly, while I was rattling on about how the Da Vinci Code is blasphemous from a Muslim point of view, because it presupposes Jesus married Mary Magdelene and contravened the Qur'an, I received the following email from a Muslim, confirming some of the other posters predictions about the Muslim reaction:

"IDIOTS...did they even read the BOOK!
Don't they realize that the whole premise is against the "DIVINITY" of Jesus,
which is what Muslims believe and that the book's image of Jesus in MUCH MORE in
line with the Islamic view than The "son of God-God" view of the Catholics...barbarians!"

I do find the depiction blasphemous (as a Muslim) however that does not mean I am going to riot in the streets and kill people. The cartoons depicting Mohammed were considered blasphemous by some, but I supported publication and the universal right of freedom of expression (UDHCR, ICCPR, customary international law).

Hi Sofia

You wrote

"Haidon says:"The theory constructed is completely contrary to the Muslim view point that Jesus ascended into heaven prior to his crcifiction".
But Haidon,my Muslim friend says that in his Ahmediya Koran,Jesus was indeed crucified,but though they thought he died,he was't,and he escaped,and went all the way to India(kashmere) ,married, had one child ,and died there.He (my friend) says,there is a grave of 'Isa' in Kashmere even today.
so according to my friend,this film,and book of Da Vinchi Code is not Blaphemeous to Muslims at all as it confirms Jesus is not Son of God,and Jesus's escape of death , marriage,and fathering a child.."

Firstly, there is no such thing as the Ahmadiyya Qur'an. The Ahmadiyya believe in a subsequent book by their spiritual leader which states that Isa ran away to Inida. This is a minority view. Nonethless, to Ahmadiyya this movie would likely be less offensive.

Posted by: Haidon at May 18, 2006 5:07 PM

But we know at least some of the Apostles were married. Peter was married. Jesus has brothers and sisters according to the New Testament, but no wife and children of his own.

Posted by: Rebecca JW at May 18, 2006 5:08 PM

From Cruzado:

1) What in God's name does the "Da Vinci Code" have to do with Jihad or Islamic imperialism?

At a surface level, nothing. However, many westerners are fond of trashing the Christian belief. This aspect of our society has not gone unnoticed by the imams, who often use it to further their own aims. Why? because muslims regard the west as "Christian". Next we hear the statement that "Even the Christians can't agree on what their religion teaches. For example, take the Da Vinci Code..." The fact that the people who produced, directed and acted in this movie are not necessarily Christians in conveniently forgotten. That does not mean that people don't have the right to question or criticise any aspect of Christianity, or any other religion, as they see fit. As a general rule, the followers of Christ don't seem to mind honest and open enquiry, even well-intended scorn, and have been putting up with it for 2000 years, beginning with the Founder.

"2) Why does the notion that Christ may have had an ordinary life with a woman, children and brothers and sisters seems to offend anyone?"

I don't really think it's about people taking offence. It's just that it's amazing how many non-Christians have read a book or two that puports to reveal the "historical" Jesus (i.e. a de-deifed Christ) and think they know all there is to know on the matter. Christians, therefore, who regard Christ as God Incarnate, are always having to listen to endless diatribes about the error of their ways. But because Christianity does not preach death to unbelievers, they are naturally, an easy target. Also, non-Christians seem to think that Christians are brain-dead people who have somehow lost the ability to reason, and never stop to condider that the Christian faith maybe, just maybe, is based on solid historical, and well-reasoned, eveidence. And while this eveidence is not a pre-requisite for faith, it does help to underpin and strengthen it. However, people believe what they want to believe, which is as it should be.

"The Old Testament is not a history book and neither are the Gospels, in fact they often contradict themselves. They are books of faith and should be regarded as such."

Actually, the history covered in both the Old and New Testamnents has proven remarkably accurate, as anyone even vaguely aquainted with biblical archaeology can attest to. And, incidentaly, these books do claim to offer a history of God's dealings with mankind. As for the so-called "contradictions", perhaps you should read a good Christian refutation on this matter. (Josh MacDowell's "Evidence That Demands A Verdict" would be a good starting point.)

"A Jesus without children would never have become a leader, he would have been made fun of either as an impotent or as a homossexual."

Well, actually, they did execute Him (although not for these reasons) which is rather more sever that merely making fun of Him. In fact He was not accepted as a leader except by His own small band of followers.

"Now you tell me: does the fact that Jesus might have had brothers, sisters and children make him a lesser figure?"

Brothers and sisters? No. Children? Yes. Because it removes His deity, the claims He made about Himself as recorded in the Gospels, the claims made about Him in the Gospels and other books of the New Testament, and the prophecies concerning Him in the Old Testament.

"To me it does not, quite the opposite."

Perhaps this is because you want Jesus to be more like you, while He wants you to be more like Him.

This post is not intended as an attempt at prozeltysing. Rather, I have merely attempted to offer a possible explanation as to why Christians may at times seem a little vexed at always having to defend their Faith, even in a forum that is really about halting the rapid advance islam in western civilization. And also to try and clear up a couple of common misconceptions Cruzado, and others, seem to entertain.

Posted by: Xerxes at May 18, 2006 5:49 PM

Granny if that Harpo Speaks remark was directed at Mr Schneider. Let me remind you that Judaism and Christianity are also patriarchial and misogynist religions..if one bases one's opinion on Scriptures (especially Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Romans and Acts), it is easily proven that Islam is merely an attempt to ape and coopt both (Rabbincal} Judaism and {Monophysite) Christianity. There isn't much in the Qur'an and ahadith, that doesn't have precedents in the Old Testament or new (especially Deuteronomy, Leviticus, Chronicles and Kings), and the bit about Jesus not dying on the Cross is not an Islamic invention either, it's roots are in early Christian communities, especially in Syria.

That a woman is half that of a man, can be found in Levitucus, were a woman who gives birth to a female child is unclean for TWO weeks and remains in the blood of her purification for 66 days (Leviticus 12-6) but if it is a male child she is unclean for a week and remains in the blood of her purification for 33 days (Leviticus 12:2-4)

As regards the insensiblity and unworthiness of woman, try l Corinthians 11. Christ is head of the man, and man is head of the woman. A woman should be hijabed (head covered) l Corinthians ll:6, a woman should keep silent in church if she wants to learn anything let her ask her husband (l Corinthians 14:34-35).. I could go on, and on and on.

Posted by: Nariz at May 18, 2006 6:19 PM

Hello Haidon,

Good of you to respond in such a refreshing intellectually honest manner.

Xerxes, very good points. The whole argument breaks upon the person of Jesus, in my opinion. If Jesus was divine, then Muhammad's contradiction of His word in the Qur'an cannot be the word of God in the way Muslims believe it to be. If it were, it would be consistent with the words of Jesus and it is not.

If Jesus was not divine, then the Qur'an could be the word of God, but they cannot both be true; it must be one or the other. Therefore, the de-deification of Jesus is the one essential step Islam needs to gain credence.

Posted by: Rebecca JW at May 18, 2006 6:28 PM

Nariz, you may consider that these texts are extremely ancient and so the bible represents a record of man's evolving comprehension of the divine, whereas the Qur'an is thought to be the perfectly created word of God, which is an entirely different thing; a complete revelation with no need for anything else and allowing no contradiction of itself. I don't know how we can view Islam as anything less than complete mental and spiritual slavery (sorry Haidon).

Posted by: Rebecca JW at May 18, 2006 6:41 PM

"Have you ever heard of a group of Jews who were around at the time of Jesus who became famous for the putting together what became "The Dead Sea Scrolls", callled the essenes?"

Yes I have.

"PS : Most likely Jesus adopted that type of life, staying single, like what the essenes did."

Most likely he did not. Like I said, 2000 years ago it was unthinkable for a rabbi NOT to be married and not to have children. I have read extensively on this issue. Claiming that Jesus left no offspring of his own makes it much easier for the Church to claim Jesus as a divine figure, instead of claiming him as a man under divine inspiration (or for the most skeptics, an extraordinary figure way ahead of his time).

"Also got to take into consideration that Jesus did what the prophets did in the OT, travel around the country and it did not leave time for a wife and children."

Hmm... In case you missed the obvious, there is a huge gap in the New Testament regarding Jesus' life (all the way until his "31st" birthday). If you want to know why I wrote "31st" and not 31st, read Pepe Rodriguez' excellent "Mentiras Fundamentales de la Iglesia Catolica". I don't want to spoil the fun.

Posted by: cruzado at May 18, 2006 7:15 PM

"Perhaps this is because you want Jesus to be more like you, while He wants you to be more like Him."

Perhaps not. ANd when I mentioned the contradictions, I was speaking of contradictions in the Gospels (how many people were listening the sermon of the mountain? How many breads were miraculously multiplied? Go read it for yourself).

"And also to try and clear up a couple of common misconceptions Cruzado, and others, seem to entertain."

I have few misconceptions about religion. I will say however, that I agree with most of what you wrote in your post (particularly the part about children removing Christ's divinity). In the end it all comes down to one's beliefs. I have a very personal (and unorthodox) relationship with my religiousness. I don't expect others to think alike.

Posted by: cruzado at May 18, 2006 7:25 PM

No need for apologies here. The criticism is needed and accepted. Nariz's comments arent helpful (moral equivalency arguments never are in the context of Islamic-Christian-Judaism discussion). Such comments render "real" inter-faith dialogue useless, and harmful.

Posted by: Haidon at May 18, 2006 7:27 PM

For those that are interested :

An interesting URL about the essenes and the famous "Dead Sea Scrolls". A very interesting site.

http://www.crystalinks.com/dss.html

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at May 18, 2006 9:03 PM

Rebecca, you are correct. If Jesus is God then teh Quran is wrong. If Jesus is not God in the flesh, then the Quran is correct. However the Quran is then wrong for calling Him a prophet since he prophesied His death on the cross and His resurrection, and is therefore a false prophet. Seems however you look at it the Quran is wrong.

Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at May 18, 2006 9:04 PM

I thought we were on JW/DW, not on a Christian discussion group. However, I cannot resist mentioning that the following is the finest example of circular reason I have seen in many years:

"Xerxes, very good points. The whole argument breaks upon the person of Jesus, in my opinion. If Jesus was divine, then Muhammad's contradiction of His word in the Qur'an cannot be the word of God in the way Muslims believe it to be. If it were, it would be consistent with the words of Jesus and it is not.

"If Jesus was not divine, then the Qur'an could be the word of God, but they cannot both be true; it must be one or the other. Therefore, the de-deification of Jesus is the one essential step Islam needs to gain credence."

That said, can we get back to Islam please and off the learned man-god/movie discussion?

Posted by: Kafir Nonbeliever at May 18, 2006 9:19 PM

"If Jesus is not God in the flesh, then the Quran is correct." Bohemond_1069

What I said however was "could be" - just to be clear.

Posted by: Rebecca JW at May 18, 2006 9:32 PM

I'm not sure why Jesus having children would obviate his divinity: the Christian view is that Jesus was 100% human and 100% divine, not 50/50, or 30/70. If he was 100% human, then he could have had children, and having had them, he would remain 100% divine. There has, however, always been a lurking tendency among orthodox Christians to anxiously wish to delimit the 100% humanity, fearing that it somehow impinges on the 100% divinity. But anything short of 100% humanity would make Jesus no longer God Incarnate, but rather God animating a humanoid simulacrum: in short, docetism.

Nota bene: the 100% humanity does, in fact, impinge (at least rationally) on the 100% divinity: that's why the Incarnation is a miracle and a "scandal", and not an easy lump of sugar to swallow.

Posted by: Television at May 18, 2006 10:16 PM

Flat Earth Navigation Syndrome.

Posted by: Mike Schneider at May 18, 2006 10:40 PM

Mike Schneider - you seem oh so happy to label/abuse people who disagree with you - well done, you rival a few Muslims around here.

Your evolutionary science is NOT provable; it's ultimately a faith - yet that was rammed downed my mouth every time I turn on the TV; go to school; go top uni; read the paper etc etc. And you have the hide to say Christians are ramming it down your throat??? Grow a brain! Always good to see the poisonous reply from you “believers” when one dares to disagree with evolution – suddenly I’m psychotic? Yep golden calf indeed! Plenty of HIGHLY QUALIFIED SCIENTISTS/atheists also don't believe in this “evolution” either - you would see that if you even bothered to follow some of the latest scientific arguments/debates (see who the discover of DNA attributed the complexity of DNA to when he realised it was to complex to evolve - aliens!)

Like Paolo quotes:I guess that Plato really was right: people love, even worship, what they do not have.)

You are exactly the same.

The whole point of this Da Vinci article, from what I see is that when a Danish editor prints a few cartoons of Mo; all of Eurarabia's leaders condemn them.

When a Muslim makes a movie mocking the most sacred thing to Christians - Christ - he gets given a tax break.

And as for those posters saying how "evil" and limp wristed Christianity is: Well I DON'T SEE YOU UP THERE BEFORE THE COURTS LIKE:

DANIEL SCOT (Whom I have personally met)
DANNY NAHALLIA (SP)

OR THE CATHOLIC SYDNEY BISHOP GEORGE PELL

OR THE PREACHER WHO WAS IN MY CHURCH AND EVERY OTHER CHURCH (CATHOLIC OR OTHERWISE WHO WOULD LISTEN) PREACHING AGAINST ISAM.

OR

THE US GENERAL FROM AFGHANISTAN WHO WAS TAPED IN THE USA IN SOME "EVIL' CHRISTIAN CHURCH STATING THE EVILS OF ISLAM.

Apart from a few atheists/secularists; you are few and far in number compared to the Christians speaking out - especially when we consider how many Christians are being murdered, raped and killed for their beliefs in Muslim countries.

Only since our "golden age" of "secularism" have Muslims so peacefully "invaded" our countries. In other words in the last 50 years - the same 50 years that has witnessed a decline in Christianity. In fact the countries doing deals with Islam today – Russia and China are atheistic countries.

Of course you die hard anti Christian types will blame us, all thanks to a few liberal Christians who have absolutely no political power at all (as opposed to the lefty's/capitalists who are not Christian in power today). Yet the exact opposite is true.

Posted by: 3rdtimelucky at May 18, 2006 11:30 PM

Rebecca, my point is that either way, the Quran is wrong.

Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at May 18, 2006 11:32 PM

Yet another article from Ted Baehr at WND. In this article he essentially argues that it would be better for Christians to die than see the movie:

As Jesus says in Mark 9:42, "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea."

In other words, to those Christians and Non-Christians who are shilling for the evil represented by "The Da Vinci Code," death would be preferable to them than the punishment that God will bring down on their ignorant, foolish heads when they face the Final Judgment!

This man is a lunatic.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50269

Posted by: Haidon at May 19, 2006 1:00 AM

3rdtimelucky> Mike Schneider - you seem oh so happy to label/abuse people who disagree with you...

Oh, that's not it at all: See, "disagreement" has absolutely nothing to do with it; *expertise* does. I couldn't care less if you think your opinion ought to have some *value* to me -- because as a free individual, it is my privilege to rationally judge that it does not. Subsequent to that, consensus with error likewise has no value to me.

Your Creationist blarg is every single bit as moronic as the mindset of the Church all those centuries ago when it patiently listened to Copernicus explain his observations of the heavens through his telescopes (and how they were not quite exactly, you see, in accordance with the prevailing dogma of an earth-centered universe) before finding him guilty of heresy and submitting him to house-arrest for the rest of his life.

The solution to a murderous psycho-mystic-voodoo-bullshit death cult is not a more benevolent psycho-mystic-voodoo-bullshit cult. The solution is reason.

Posted by: Mike Schneider at May 19, 2006 1:55 AM

No Nariz
If you care to read the whole of the thread you will read Hugh say that he is going off to read some lighter matter , ie the Autobiography of Harpo Marx. I possess the same book myself, a very funny story, entitled Harpo Speaks.

I really cannot see why a passing remark to Hugh should result in an attack on my faith and/or beliefs by you.
However.
I have expressed an opinion on the da Vinci code elsewhere although my observations there will add little to this debate.
Other than to point out the respect with which Christ treated the women around him who I mention.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at May 19, 2006 3:05 AM

"The solution to a murderous psycho-mystic-voodoo-bullshit death cult is not a more benevolent psycho-mystic-voodoo-bullshit cult."

Mike, is this the sort of "reasoned" comment you had in mind?

Posted by: Xerxes at May 19, 2006 3:54 AM

"I'm not sure why Jesus having children would obviate his divinity:"

This would require a fairly detailed discussion of the biblical view of mankind and the "fallen" nature of humanity. Which I don't think is an appropriate discussion in this forum.

"There has, however, always been a lurking tendency among orthodox Christians to anxiously wish to delimit the 100% humanity, fearing that it somehow impinges on the 100% divinity."

Well, I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "orthodox Christians", but this "tendency to ... delimit the 100% humanity,..." is simply a false charge. I have certainly not encouterered it in my readings on this topic.

"Nota bene: the 100% humanity does, in fact, impinge (at least rationally) on the 100% divinity: that's why the Incarnation is a miracle and a "scandal", and not an easy lump of sugar to swallow."

I'm not sure if "impinge" is the right word, if you mean it in the sense of a negative impact. There is no need for for Christ's humanity to negatively impact His divinity. This is indeed the great "mystery", and the great miracle, and what makes Christ's sacrificial death (as the perffect man) valid.

Posted by: Xerxes at May 19, 2006 5:05 AM

Kafir N,

My point is only this: that if Jesus was/is the Son of God/Son of Man then there is no possibility whatsoever that Muhammad was His prophet.

But, if one accepts that they were both merely human prophets, then the words of either one **could** be true, but they cannot both be true simultaneously. In other words, one or both of them is lying.

You must maintain it is both and that's fair enough.

Posted by: Rebecca JW at