UPDATE: I’ve been informed that Murray Watson has left the priesthood. (Thanks to Richard)
———-
It’s Salon, and so of course it’s saying that the Qur’an is not the problem. Whenever there is a story in the mainstream media about the Qur’an or Islam, you can be sure that it will be assuring us that they have nothing to do with the violence committed in their name and in accord with their teachings. And if you’re a non-Muslim who reflects and furthers these views, such as Fr. Murray Watson, a Roman Catholic priest and professor of Biblical studies and “interfaith dialogue” in London, Ontario, you’re in line with the views of the Pope, the governments of the West, and the mainstream media — you’ve got it made. Whether or not what you’re saying is true, however, is another matter. Comments interspersed below.
“The Quran isn’t the problem: Violent extremism is about more than just sacred texts,” by Murray Watson, Salon, February 23, 2015:
In a column for Salon earlier this month, “Faith-fueled forces of hatred: Obama’s religion speech was troubling — but not for the reasons the right alleges,” Jeffrey Tayler suggested that the real problem with the religious extremism which increasingly confronts us lies deeper than merely the heinous actions we have witnessed. Rather, Tayler argues, it is inscribed in the very sacred texts of the world’s largest religious traditions. “We should not ascribe vile behavior to misreadings of the canon,” the argument goes, because that sense of hatred and violence is actually at the heart of religions like Judaism, Christianity and Islam — whose scriptures include some admittedly stomach-turning passages.
As a Biblical scholar, however, I beg to disagree with this analysis, which seems like an oversimplification of the situation, and a forced dichotomy where other options exist.
There is no denying that Judaism, Christianity and Islam contain in their sacred books verses and chapters that are distasteful, awkward, unpleasant, and (especially from our modern point-of-view) morally dubious. Not only scholars of religion, but all those who attempt to take those scriptures seriously, are forced to grapple with those issues.
While the heightened attention to the destructive potential of these texts is perhaps new, discomfort with many of these passages is not, and each of these faiths has significant interpretive traditions which face these difficulties head-on, in many cases managing to neutralize or tame them, so to speak, through symbolism, allegory, contextualization or similar approaches. With the exception of the most die-hard fundamentalist readers (who insist on a strictly literal reading, with no room for interpreters to “remediate” such difficulties), each of the three monotheisms offers credible and creative ways to address these texts thoughtfully, respectfully and effectively.
“While the heightened attention to the destructive potential of these texts is perhaps new, discomfort with many of these passages is not, and each of these faiths has significant interpretive traditions which face these difficulties head-on, in many cases managing to neutralize or tame them, so to speak, through symbolism, allegory, contextualization or similar approaches.” Actually that is just what we do not see, and what is so urgently needed, in mainstream Islamic exegesis of the Qur’an. Instead, in Islam literalism is mainstream.
They do this because, at least in their classic forms, none of those three traditions consider themselves empowered to radically edit their canonical literature. Being unable to jettison words that previous generations judged to be inspired, the next best option is finding appropriate ways to de-fang these “texts of terror,” as scholar Phyllis Trible has aptly called them.
Inasmuch as I suspect every major religion tradition has texts such as these, which are hard to reconcile with modern moral standards, I think that blaming the texts themselves is somewhat misleading—especially since the vast majority of these religions’ adherents show no inclination to act out the troubling content of their own faiths’ sacred texts.
Textual violence does not necessarily get translated into physical violence; in fact, very seldom is that the case overall, I would argue. It would be very hard to find a Jew who advocated the kind of genocide that some passages of the Hebrew Scriptures could be read as endorsing.
Watson ought to apprise his Salon readers that one key reason for this is because nowhere do the Hebrew Scriptures exhort believers to imitate the behavior depicted in those passages. Nowhere do Jewish or Christian exegetes teach that those passages are marching orders for contemporary believers, or believers for all time. But this is exactly what all too many imams teach Muslims about the violent passages in the Qur’an.
There are very few contemporary Christians who view the bloody language of the Book of Revelation as license for wholesale slaughter of the wicked in Christ’s name.
Very few? How about none at all? Where are the Christians who are committing violence and then justifying it by citing Revelation?
And it is only a very small fraction of self-described Muslims who focus on verses in the Qur’an that (at least on the surface) appear anti-Jewish or anti-Christian. In each case, no one denies the existence of those passages. They are there, and educated Jews, Christians and Muslims have long been aware of them.
A very small fraction — say, one percent? In other words, over ten million people? In any case, here again, what is sorely lacking and much needed is a Muslim exegesis of the Qur’an that rejects literalism in relation to the violent passages. I have been calling for this for years. Instead, we get constant obfuscation, such as Tahir ul-Qadri’s vaunted 300-page fatwa against terrorism, which doesn’t even mention the passages of the Qur’an that exhort believers to violence against unbelievers; and the recent “Letter to Baghdadi” from Muslim scholars to the self-styled caliph of the Islamic State, which endorsed central concepts of jihad doctrine that Western analysts usually think are limited only to “extremists.”
The rest of the Salon piece explains how Jews and Christians allegorize and spiritualize uncomfortable passages. Fr. Murray Watson assumes that Muslims do this with the Qur’an also. He doesn’t offer any examples. I’d love to see one from a mainstream exegete — an interpretation that Muslims demonstrably accept in large numbers. Right now that is still the 800-pound gorilla who is not in the room.
cs says
What an embarrass, surely many Rabbis said the same crap. At least the Rambam called him ha Meshugah (the crazy one).
Mirren10 says
Go and boil your head, Justin. The act *may* diffuse some of the gas filling your brain.
While I consider Father Watson to be foolish, he isn’t beheading, torturing, or crucifying anyone.
Run along.
Peggy says
He may not be torturing or beheading anyone but he is protecting the vermin who is. By saying that their satanic book is not to blame, therefore their cult is not to blame he is lying to us. He is protecting them by giving us false sense of security when we should really be afraid of them.
Not all will behead you, but most will cheer them on.
The Doctor says
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity.
Odds are the former priest is just stupid and following the “party” line since the Pope himself is saying things like that.
Jay Boo says
Peggy Justin is a well known troll.
His claim “one million times worse than islamo-fascists.” is typical.
Islam is just a pivot point to him for a passive aggressive sneak attack on the West
He has more contempt for non-Muslims than jihad.
pumbar says
Who are you to be the new “teller of trolls”? Justin is not a troll, he is a bloke that hates the West for the horrors we struck against him. He is not TROLLING nor are a lot more that you claim are trolling, doing so. We may get upset at having our dirty washing thrown in our face (Kosovo) but that might be a good plan to get our people to get their act together and make a change.
Jay Boo until this entire comments board sanctions you as the central scrutinisor then just let people post their ideas without you calling them trolls.
Mirren10 says
Hi, pumbar.
I endorse your comment on Jay Boo, see my comment here;
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/02/roman-catholic-priest-in-salon-the-quran-isnt-the-problem/comment-page-1#comment-1202267
However, although I would agree with you that Justin is not a troll in the generally accepted sense of the word, he is, in my opinion, definitely unhinged.
If you enter his name in the JW search engine, you will see that his entire focus seems to be on homosexuality, and the evil wickedness of the West in our general social acceptance of it. Which he believes means we **deserve to be destroyed by islam.**
He is no lover of democracy, or any of our Western values, such as free speech, either. One of his more hysterical posts advocated we should ditch democracy for a theocratic dictator, who would immediately set about executing gays.
You will of course, make up your own mind, but in my opinion he really is a seriously repulsive nutter, and is not a real counter-jihadist . Just my tuppenceworth !
Jay Boo says
@pumbar and Mirren10
If you had instead taken me to task for my going after Jay for his trashy cheap troll-like double-attack by insulting Catholics in one provocative sentence, I could at least see that as your personal opinion. Mirren 10 might have backed you up there.
———-
However, you choose to take the politically safe route of only singling me out while totally ignoring the many here have criticized Justin, including Mirren10 who correctly reminds you of Justin’s incessant bad behavior. I guess you thought that Mirren10’s criticizing me about Jay would rub off with Justin. (wrong)
——-
While I applaud Mirren10 for often defending the British people from generalized bashing some of which was unjust, she tends to be quite hypocritical when Catholics are unfairly stereotyped which takes away some of her credibility when defending Britain. Is she defending Britain because it is the right thing to do or merely out of narcissism?
Mirren10 says
Jay Boo, you really do show yourself up as a silly little twerp, sometimes.
” … my going after Jay for his trashy cheap troll-like double-attack by insulting Catholics in one provocative sentence … ”
jay did not ”insult Catholics”. He gave an **opinion**, which he is perfectly entitled to do. In your zeal to defend Christianity, you appear to be unable to distinguish between criticism, and insult. I have nothing to say against your defending Catholicism, however, your defence of Catholicism needs to take into account that there is much of Catholicism well deserving of criticism. To criticise, is not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. This is the sort of thing mohammedans do; any criticism of islam is immediately taken as an insult, deserving of opprobrium, if not death !
”However, you choose to take the politically safe route of only singling me out while totally ignoring the many here have criticized Justin, including Mirren10 who correctly reminds you of Justin’s incessant bad behavior. I guess you thought that Mirren10’s criticizing me about Jay would rub off with Justin. (wrong)”
Really, Jay Boo, this is such silly, childish nonsense. I believe pumbar’s annoyance with you was not so much your designation of Justin as a troll, but more to do with your self-satisfied, smug, and arrogant appointing of yourself as some sort of troll Finder General. Not to mention your irritating MO of abrogating to yourself how people should respond, and not only what they say, but the tone in which they should say it. He will correct me if I am wrong in this. It is certainly one of your traits that **I** find intensely irritating.
And really, Jay Boo, on what grounds do you feel that **you** should be some sort of arbiter here ? Perhaps you are unaware of how your strictures on those *you* designate as trolls, appear to others ? A little self-awareness here, might stand you in good stead.
”While I applaud Mirren10 for often defending the British people from generalized bashing some of which was unjust, she tends to be quite hypocritical when Catholics are unfairly stereotyped which takes away some of her credibility when defending Britain.”
Again, Jay Boo, what utter crap. Kindly post **one** example of me being ”** hypocritical when Catholics are unfairly stereotyped**. You will not be able to find **one single instance**.
Which takes away, entirely, **your** credibility when defending anything
”Is she defending Britain because it is the right thing to do or merely out of narcissism?”
Oh boy. Do **you** need to take a look in the mirror.
I have many failings, but ”narcissism” is not one of them. You, on the other hand …
Jay Boo says
Mirren10
Instead of taking issue with the priest Jay tossed out a broadside criticism against Catholicism, but not wishing to leave it to chance to make absolutely sure he made his point, he repeated it yet a second time in the very same sentence which is clearly trolling to get attention or provoke a response with Catholics.
1 Jay goes after Catholics with acquiescence of those who are obviously bigoted against Catholics.
2 Justin goes after gays and America while pumbar essentially implies, hey not my problem that is ok or at least let’s tell Jay Boo to look away but dare not challenge any others in the fray.
.
Jay Boo says
Here is jay’s trolling for a bite comment which is technically two very short sentences but is essentially one and could easily work with a semi colon rather than a period.
——–
“Not unusual for catholics to not have a clue of what the Bible 8ble says. What a joke catholicism has become.”
Mirren10 says
” …she tends to be quite hypocritical when Catholics are unfairly stereotyped which takes away some of her credibility when defending Britain”
In reply to you, I said:
”Kindly post **one** example of me being ”** hypocritical when Catholics are unfairly stereotyped**. You will not be able to find **one single instance**. ”
Waiting.
Mirren10 says
Well, it would appear that Jay Boo is either unable, or is disinclined, to answer my challenge.
What a cowardly little wanker.
pumbar says
Language Mirren! Language! Lol.
pumbar says
” Justin goes after gays and America while pumbar essentially implies, hey not my problem that is ok or at least let’s tell Jay Boo to look away but dare not challenge any others in the fray.”
It should be easy to see that Justin is a few stumps short of a cricket match. I think we are all quite capable of working that out for ourselves Jay Boo.
Champ says
“justin” wrote:
What an IGNORANT dumb-ass Traitor!
I wish they hand this piece of shit over to ISIS where they will surely behead him or burn him alive while quoting from their evil text book, the quran. Such people as this piece of shit who is claiming to be a ‘priest’ are, one million times worse than islamo-fascists.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wow further proof that “justin” is NOT a Christian at all; as he hopes that this man is either beheaded or burned alive. No true, self-respecting Christian, would *ever* state such a horrible thing about anyone.
Jay Boo says
Justin
More trite hyperbole does equal credibility
Work on your sanity
mortimer says
Justin, you’re stressed. You need emotional support from a professional healer. Civilized people are concerned for the wellbeing of their enemies.
Champ says
“justin”, get lost troll.
Angemon says
“At least on the surface”, eh? I’d love if Mr. Watson could explain to us how verses like 9:30* – the justification to 9:29’s order to fight jews and christians – are NOT anti-jewish or anti-christian. If I say that christians are deluded for believing that Jesus is the son of God am I not being anti-christian? If I say that the jews believe Ezra is the son of God (which is something they never believed in) am I not being anti-jewish?
*The Jews say, “Ezra is the son of Allah “; and the Christians say, “The Messiah is the son of Allah .” That is their statement from their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved [before them]. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded?
citycat says
It’s not ONLY “a very small fraction”
but ONLY of Islam
TNT says
A Vat II priest at heart.
katnis says
“…the Salon piece explains how Jews and Christians allegorize and spiritualize uncomfortable passages. Fr. Murray Watson assumes that Muslims do this with the Qur’an also.”
This was my thought as I was reading the article. Catholics are encourage to reflect, contemplate, pray, and are given golden rules as guidelines. In my experience as a Catholic, I have never been encouraged, instructed, or inspired to do harm to others, my community, my world, or myself. I believe that Fr. Watson is applying the same thinking, albeit naively.
Jesus encourages us to be in this world, but not of this world. This innocence is beautiful, but does a congregation a disservice when it does not honestly address what is happening in the world today.
I encourage Fr. Watson to spend more time with his books and to revisit the conversation. I look forward to his follow-up reflection.
Loretta Pienaar says
These people, I don’t care whether a priest, rabbi, a President or a Prime Minister of wherever, are all LETTING THE GENERAL PUBLIC DOWN!! THEY ARE LETTING WESTERN CIVILISATION DOWN!! SO, WE, THE MAN ON THE STREET WILL STAND AGAINST THE EVIL OF ISIS/ISLAM AND WE WILL FIGHT THE GOOD FIGHT. Watch if we don’t.
Peggy says
Exactly. By lying to us they are working against us and protecting the enemy. This means they too are our enemy.
Wellington says
Not being religious myself, I view ALL religious literature (almost all of which was written in a time that kindly could be called “meta-rational” or, less kindly, “pre-rational”) as being of little account except for the ethics it tried to instill. This was EXACTLY Thomas Jefferson’s point about the New Testament and why, being a master of ancient Greek as he was, he produced the “Jefferson Bible.”
Having asserted this, I would also maintain that the Bible, contra the Koran, has two great things going for it. They are 1) a capacity to treat with things metaphorically often times and certainy not as a literal paradigm of action for all time as mucho number of Muslims in full stupid, crude and horrible mode have done time and time and time again in our era; 2) a capacity, very much so in fact, to embrace a true Golden Rule for all. Every religion threatens in one way or another this or that punishment IN THE NEXT WORLD for not believing in this, that or the other thing—-yeah, you’re going to come back as a cow or a carrot or you’re going to burn in Hell for eternity,etc.——but only Islam, among the major faiths of the world threatens punishment in this world as well——and to be carried out not only by Allah but ALSO by Allah’s followers ( a more crucial distinction between Islam and the other major faiths of the earth would be hard to find).
Herein, lies the HUGE differences between the Bible and the Koran. The differences could not be greater. Father Murray Watson, by asserting the Koran is not the problem, misses all this. In fact, a greater miss in comparative assessment of religions would be hard to top, though I am fully aware that other ignoramuses like the present Pope and the Dhali Lama, have done their best to top a Father Watson in this regard by their own excuses for Islam being actually a ROP, blah, blah, blah.
Damn, ignoarnce of evil, for whatever illegitimate reason, is a horrible thing to witness. Mankind is certainly witnessing a lot of this right now, now isn’t it, by the continued efforts by way too many people to do all they can to exculpate the spiritual fascism which is Islam?
Mirren10 says
Excellent points about the difference between the Bible and the koran, Wellington.
I would add only, that the Bible is full of great prose and poetry, at least the King James version, which I love. The koran, on the other hand, is bathetic in comparison.
Wellington says
I agree, Mirren. A fair amount of Biblical prose, both OT and NT, reaches literary heights at times. By contrast, the Koran, which I forced myself to read in its entirety, all 114 Suras, is possessed of a great deal of turgid prose, just plain silly stuff (e.g., a talking baby Jesus), suffering from what I call “Allah on the brain,” and a mind-numbing repetitiveness that does indeed help to explain why anyone believing the Koran is the Word of God is cuckoo for Coco Puffs.
Accept the Koran in classical Arabic, word for word, as that from an all powerful cosmic deity (hey, why not Esperanto—–not that would have been something, no?) and anything can be believed in. Oh yeah, anything. Stunning that seventh-century, second-rate religious literature (replete with abrogations as well as distortions like what constitutes the Christian Trinity) can still be in the 21st century accepted as without error, and still defended by all the silly Father Watsons out there, never mind well over a billiion Muslims, and it’s hard not to think Scaramouche correct, about whom was said by Sabatini, that “He was born with a gift of laughter and a sense that the world was mad.”
Jay Boo says
all 114 Suras
I have heard that is a total of 6 thousand and 666 verses (seriously)
The Doctor says
The book of Psalms is filled with wondrous poetry in the original Hebrew. That is the price one must pay to read it in translation – to receive the meaning but not the thrillingly sublime poetry in the original languages.
The Qur’an, however, is ugly even in the original Arabic.
Sam says
I am an agnostic but is it possible to know Christianity without knowing Islam and Judaism? These liberal clergy are appalling.
Medina says
Sam, you have a better chance of understanding Christianity by reading a Catholic, Latin Vulgate, or footnoted Bible. The liberal clergy, be they Catholic, Protestant, or (usually Reform) Jewish are more versed in PC platitudes than the actual tenets of their supposed faiths.
Mirren10 says
What a load of vague, touchy feely, kumbaya waffle.
”Fr. Murray Watson assumes that Muslims do this with the Qur’an also.”
Yes, that’s the problem with people like him; they **assume** what they would like to believe. No moral courage whatsoever.
”He doesn’t offer any examples.”
Exactly.
It would certainly be wonderful if we saw mohammedans treating the koran as thoughtful Christians treat the Bible ( although that would be difficult; the number of good, or inspiring verses in the koran are somewhat sparse, while the verses commanding violence and murder are numerous), but until we ever do see such a thing, Father Watson brings nothing of value, beyond wishful thinking.
Kepha says
Since Mr. Watson speaks of Revelation, would he be good enough to point to exactly which text in it commands the Christians to take bloody or fiery revenge on their persecutors–as opposed to waiting for God to work out His justice as history unfolds?
Sure, the book ends with a lot of people and spiritual beings being relegated to the Lake of Fire, but I don’t see where there’s a command for Uncle Kepha or any other individual human Christian to start pushing people in when the Day of Judgment comes. Nor do I see John–or any of the New Testament authors through whom the Holy Spirit spoke– telling us that any of us should desire or expect such a calling.
Watson exemplifies the problem with too many medigenic “biblical scholars”: they don’t really appreciate the book about which they are supposed to be experts.
@Sam: I don’t think you can appreciate Christian origins without knowing something about Judaism–although there are probably millions of Christians worldwide who have probably never met a Jew in their lives (I think of quite a few brethren in the small towns and mountain villages of Taiwan, where I used to live and teach). Still, even among such people, anyone who wants to “dig deeper” and know more sooner or later raises questions about what Judaism is and was (important distinction, since a lot of water has flowed under both bridges since the first century A.D.)
But unless you are a Christian who lives in contact with Islam and Muslims, I think it is entirely possible to become even quite learned about Christianity (in all ways) without knowing much about Islam. Remember, Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Tertullian, Augustine, Irenaeus, and a host of other Christian teachers whom we read even today lived considerably before Islam even arose. And of course ALL the books of the Old and New Testaments are considerably more ancient than Islam.
Richard McC says
It looks like Murray Watson left the priesthood 2 years ago due to “personal” reasons. Here’s a link to a newsletter that contains his letter as well as part of his bishop’s letter. Neither letter enlightens us as to why he left. He’s not a priest. That must be and old picture showing him in his Roman collar.
wp.dol.ca/webportal/uploads/January_13,_20132.pdf
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
As a Biblical scholar, however, I beg to disagree with this analysis, which seems like an oversimplification of the situation, and a forced dichotomy…
Oversimplified is not nuanced, simple in a factual way to common sense, but too simple to make sense to a scholar, whether a biblical scholar or a Moslem scholar. Too many direct commands, too many references to the Cause and what that is, too plainly stated, no it couldn’t be true, couldn’t possibly be true, it’s gotta be something else, something that will fix itself after a rough patch.
One of these days. Or daze.
sheik yer'mami says
The church is clearly infiltrated from the top down. Its not hard for Salon to find a dozen of clueless priests who make idiotic statements like that. “Interfaith” rabbis have done it for years. None of them could ever be bothered to read the Koran.
cincinnatus 44 says
The Koran was a hodge lodge of fragments. Koranic scholar took the time to determine which suras were the oldest and to use that as their guide not to the structure of the Koran (it is organized by length of verse regardless of age), but to a verses importance.
Using the doctrine of ” naskh” (abrogation) they determined that those verses which came later and which were in opposition to those which occurred earlier, were the correct ones. All the love and kindness verses came from the early period of Mohammed’s life, when he stood the distinct possibility of being killed for what he said. The “sword” verses (the ones urging murderous and oppressive treatment) date from later when he had developed an army, killed many people and did not fear to shout our his willingness to kill all who would not convert or dimmify. The overwhelming consensus of Islamic scholars supports the most violent interpretations of the Koran. The reason that they do not admit this to “infidels is that it might injure Islam’s goals. They are supported in their willingness to lie by Islamic doctrines of lying (taqiyya) as appropriate to mislead the infidel.
Further, there is no “moderate Islam”. “Moderation” in Islam is called apostasy, moderates are people who are apostates in their hearts. Wisely, they will not admit it openly since the punishment for apostasy is death and it can be carried out by any Muslim at any time.
Even this little information should be enough to stop someone from the foolishness of thinking Islam can be mollified (all Islamic “peace treaties”are in the kids of Muslims “hudnas” (short duration truces limited until Islam has the strength to return to the battle.
Islamic leaders are enjoined to fight the infidels “every year” and periods of peace are considered disgraceful
There is a vastly greater amount of information, the burden of which is that to know Islam is to hate it, but so few people who speak in public even know these basics that it pains me to hear them talk (or write comments).
Richard McClory says
He left the priesthood two years ago. He doesn’t work for the Church. He’s not a spokesman for anybody except himself. That is an old picture of him wearing a Roman collar. He resigned for “personal” reasons. Please update the story to show that he’s just a blowhard “expert” layman.
katnis says
Interesting! Hmmm. Good catch. I missed the word “FORMER” in the headline. Using an outdated photo kinds of slants the story, eh? I agree – updated photo, please.
Cincinnatus 44 says
A useful addendum to the discussions underway is that while the Bible (Christian or Jewish) contains a great deal of violence, much of it is to show examples of evil. But even when that is not the goal quite clearly, the Koran is the only religious “book” that is currently and ab initio encourages, nay demands murderous and oppressive behavior as the only certain guarantee to eternal happiness.
It is a uniquely bad religion, unredeemed by the fact that it had some excellent scholars about a thousand years ago.
profitsbeard says
BELIEF in the Koran is the problem.
If it were just considered a bizarre book of sadistic revenge fantasies by a 7th century pedophile mass-murderer, it would be one more harmless historical curiosity like the Satyricon.
Beagle says
In the immortal words of Bugs Bunny, what a maroon.
http://www.jpost.com/Experts/Does-moderate-Islam-exist-375316
Quote:
…Following the latest in a long string of inhumane and barbaric attacks by the IS, who only offer these three options to non-Muslims, it becomes mandatory to ask whether this principle IS uses is Islamic or Un-Islamic.
In other words, can a young Muslim become more religious—and more obedient to Allah—without subscribing to this ancient brutality? Will he be able to find an approved Islamic theological source or interpretation that clearly contradicts this principle, or at least teaches it in a different way (i.e., contextualizing it in time and place)?
The sad answer is: No, he cannot…
ruth says
Good thing that man left the priesthood..He understands nothing about the Bible and even less about the koran..
CogitoErgoSum says
How can anyone who professes to be a Christian think anything other than that the Quran IS a problem? Please see Quran 5:72-73 and also Quran 19:88-93.
I would say that the Quran is a HUGE problem and the fact that this priest and others within the Catholic Church, all the way up to the Pope himself, are ignoring or minimizing this problem is simply incredible. Writings such as this by a Catholic priest which spread such perceptions do not comply at all with Christ’s command to teach the Gospel to all men but rather constitute submission to the religion of submission.
When I was younger I would not have believed it possible but now I can’t help thinking there is within the Catholic Church a tacit acceptance that Muhammad actually was a prophet. The very idea sickens me. There is no way a Christian can accept the Quran as being a holy book delivered by a prophet of God and remain a Christian. The fact that the Quran denies the divinity of Christ should be enough proof to any Christian that the book is NOT from God and, therefore, everyting in it should be suspect. Nothing, NOT ONE THING in the Quran should be assumed to be truthful and no Christian should speak of it as being sacred scripture. And yet this Catholic priest says it’s not a problem and a President of the United States (who is a self-proclaimed Christian) calls it holy.
De profundis clamo ad te domine.
CogitoErgoSum says
One ray of hope. I now see that Mr. Watson is no longer a priest. Deo gratias.
Kepha says
Since you quote Psalm 130 (Hebrew and Protestant numbering), which is one of the Songs of Ascents (probably used during pilgrimage when the Temple stood), I can only note that the Biblical pilgrim recognizes his sinfulness and need of salvation. He approaches God in either repentance or rejoicing for salvation given; not in boasting of his own righteousness or in the idea that he is among “the best of men”.
mortimer says
Too true! The Koran is nothing but a problem. How can anyone but a Muslim say otherwise?
Mirren10 says
”UPDATE: I’ve been informed that Murray Watson has left the priesthood. (Thanks to Richard)”
Let’s hope he now has the time to actually *read* the koran, and compare it with the Bible. He might have an epiphany.
jewdog says
Catholicism has nothing to do with the Bible. It stems from when the Romans invented pizza and needed a central authority to regulate the size and toppings.
mortimer says
You seem to have found the pope in the pizza, JD!
Not everyone has your shrewd insight.
mortimer says
Murray Watson is apparently unaware that Islam is highly codified and that the consensus of Islam’s canonical scholars reached agreement on the meaning and importance of jihad.
Fr. Henri Boulad, SJ of Alexandra understands the consensus:
“Islamism is not a caricature, nor a counterfeit, nor a heresy, nor a fringe or atypical phenomenon versus classical, orthodox, Sunnite Islam.
To the contrary, I think Islamism is naked Islam, Islam without a mask and without paint, Islam perfectly consistent and true to itself, an Islam that has the courage and lucidity to go all the way to its ultimate conclusions and final implications.
Islamism is Islam in all its logic and in all its rigour. Islamism is present in Islam as the chick is present in the egg, as the fruit is present in the flower and as the tree is present in the seed.
But what is Islamism?
Islamism is political Islam, the bearer of a project for a model society and whose aim is to establish a theocratic state based on Sharia, the only legitimate law—since it is divine—since it was revealed and enshrined in the Koran and Sunna—it’s a law that applies to everything.
Here is an all-inclusive and all-encompassing project, one that is total, totalizing and totalitarian.”
PRCS says
“each of the three monotheisms offers credible and creative ways to address these texts thoughtfully, respectfully and effectively”
The ‘Holy’ Qur’an (5:38):
[As for] the thief, the male and the female, amputate their hands in recompense for what they committed as a deterrent [punishment] from Allah . And Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise.
Nearly an entire page in the Qur’an provided by CAIR is devoted not to a denunciation of that ‘divine’ barbarity but to its defence.
So, ex-priest Watson, how about providing a credible and creative way to address that text thoughtfully, respectfully and effectively.
You CAN back your assertion up, right?
James says
Muhammad said ” If any of you are unsure about scripture, go to a Christian and ask” it would be slightly redeeming for Muhammad if they obeyed that instruction .
If Islam were to ask “Where do Muslims stand before scripture” We would have to say that they stand firmly under the Law.
They say that they follow the example of Muhammad, but do they really, because Muhammad would have known that for him to teach a bad example as a virtue the sin he committed would be eternally compounded by concupiscence.
As an example Adam and Eve were given information from their creator which was contradicted by a lower creature a lower life form if you prefer and they too became inferior being’s because of their decisions.
That’s is why the scriptures tell us something that can be applied conversely directly because of Adam and Eve;
“Receive a prophet (anyone who is speaking the truth) because he is a prophet, receive a prophets reward” it goes without saying that we all act on our beliefs because belief is a form of gnosis which we cannot go against without causing trauma to our consciences, so I question today’s Muslim’s that go headlong into the jaws of hell saying “We love death more than you love life” and other such slogans which are antithetical to Christianity which Christ declared his presence would provide abundantly.
Why then if the Law is binding to the human psyche are Muslims getting themselves into situations where they think they’ll have to kill or be killed for a religion that can only guarantee hell because everything in the Law and the prophets asks the believer to build up his relationship with God and our neighbour at the peril of our souls.
Muslims should open their minds to the fact that the Koran is based upon hearsay after his death with the clear intention of compiling an alternative bible with its inflammatory defamations, and its antithesis honed for centuries which has darkened the minds of those who have been force fed a tribal understanding of eternal revenge as the basis of all justice, therefore an innocent generation of any given race or group can be tied into the acts or omissions (real or imagined):of ancient history to be liable because of their race or ethnicity, under no conditions can this be called a religion of peace.
Egypt”s Al Sissi realises the Muslim mistake “The Umma cannot win a war where they are intending to murder every non-Muslim on the planet” because the Ummah itself by hosting these Wahhabi groups will turn on themselves, as we see already happening now because to be a non Wahhabi Muslim is to be heretic, making their own lives subject to Sharia and their families subject to booty, as has already happened in Iraq and Nigeria ((but not restricted to).
Just as Al Sissi realises total war is unwinnable every leader on earth emphasises “Islam is a religion of peace” because the (phoney) war which has developed must not be allowed to polarise and radicalise host populations.
Every time Muslims hijack Islam Muslims themselves suffer through other Muslims. Christian societies in Muslim countries have always been a harmonising buffer between different groups, but immigrant Muslims voice grievances against their new homes and it causes a backlash against Christians in their former countries, worse than that the host country becomes a safe haven for radicals to destabilise other Muslim countries, by acts of war perpetrated by foreign nationals acting with impunity.
So going back to Muhammad asking Muslims to ask Christians about where one stands in regards to scriptures, anyone who does not love his neighbour is going to hell, taking innocent lives by murder and acts of war makes one liable to hell, because these people are the property of the almighty God, they are not “booty” and they have the protection of the Word of God because although these poor people suffer they have a reward in the hereafter not so those who hated and abused them, this applies to anyone who defies the Law and who enters a country as though they are not going to just live in it but to own it, by force and force of mind (ideology) because to accomplish that you would have to live forever but to try to enforce that in one life you will only go to Hell.
Should always ask a Christian like Muhammad says, but one that tells it like it is, isn’t that right Mr Murray Watson
James
james says
Three Abrahamic Faiths,
Judaism is a parent relationship to Christianity, Islam is a bastard child.
The crux of the Mosaic Law the commandments are obligatory on all Christians, (and Muslims even though they would deny that) but the Christian faith seems to have adopted the stance that it has superceded Judaism and whilst that is right,because the New testament leads to that truth,to fall from such grace leads a Christian to fall into the power of the Mosaic law, so all Christians are liable to be judged as those who had no faith, according to the Law, if they reject their faith,but Muslims take parts of the Old Testament and apply it to themselves in triumphalism, so they take the passages about God giving Moses them the Land of Canaan and apply it to themselves, migrating into all the countries that have granted them permission, in this way Muslims plagiarise Jewish texts, and they also read the Bible very critically against the Jewish people, and by no means do they see a distinction with the Jews of the Old Testament and the Modern Jew, Israeli or otherwise. Its been my experience that if Islam accepted the God of the Jews they would fear his judgement and obey the commandments but they trivialise evil saying “The Allmighty is oft forgiving” in short the have no fear of God, consequently the Koran (scraps of paper gathered by semi illiterates from illiterates)includes the most harrowing accounts of evil ever eulogised, and these eulogies are their ‘sacred texts’ this makes certain that Muhammad could never have existed because he would have implicated himself in eternal sin, because to reject the commandments (of love) is to reject God himself.
Muslims in that case are victims themselves because you cannot help where you are born or in what environment you will live in because that has been createwd for you by those who came before you.
David says
Dear Robert. Yourself and anyone here who wishes an authoritative interpretation of verses in the Quran and Bible please refer to
The Book of Certitude by Baha’u’llah.
Here is the link. Choose Writings of Baha’u’llah then Book of Certitude.
http://www.bahai.org/library/
This is a truly unique website where you will read things you probably all here agree with as you’re all as much against violence as we are. I hope you enjoy yourselves there.
Baucent says
What a joke of a “priest”, he must have been asleep during lectures to have such a shallow understanding of the Bible.
mach37 says
If these naysayers would just pick up an English translation of the Koran and understand the words printed therein, they would realize that the Koran IS the problem. Ending verses with “Allah is merciful and forgiving” does NOT cancel the opening words that call for violence and often death.
Richard Courtemanche says
The Quran is part of the problem with its non-peaceful and violent verses. The Quran needs to get rid of its political disease so that Muslims can focus on its spirituality.
Mirren10 says
”The Quran needs to get rid of its political disease so that Muslims can focus on its spirituality.”
What ‘spirituality’ would that be ?
Can you quote a verse ?
ECAW says
“Civilized people are concerned for the wellbeing of their enemies”
Really? My forebears were civilized but I’m glad they weren’t at all concerned about the well being of their enemies in 1914 and 1940.
ECAW says
That was intended to be a reply to Mortimer.
voegelinian says
In fact, our forbears were concerned about the wellbeing of the enemy in both WW1 and WW2 — but they were also rational (something we can’t be sure mortimer is, from past statements — e.g., http://tiny.cc/1oqmux); and thus we reasonably conclude (also based on the data) that the enemy was simply that bad — so grotesquely, monumentally horrific as to force us, by sheer dint of our backs against the wall with no option but to survive, to behave in ways that resembled a Genghis Khan-style truculent ferocity (e.g., the fire-bombings of cities); but that would be only to the careless observer who hasn’t taken the time and trouble to consider all the relevant factors, the larger picture, and the tradition of progressive civility in the West.
ECAW says
That’s what they call nuance isn’t it? Or perhaps you’re saying that Genghis Khan had concern for his enemies’ welfare.
Kasey says
To describe the discriminatory and lethal verses found in Islamic “so-called” holy books such as the Koran, as “sacred texts”,is ludicrous. They are equivalent to those found in Mein Kampf on Jews and Slav peoples.
doomsdae says
You got that right on!!
David says
This is a real shame. As a fellow Roman Catholic, I am ashamed. We need courageous priests, who will speak the truth about these cases, like they used to in history. The world needs another pope Urban the second, or Pius the fifth, to speak the truth.
M S case says
“Left the Priesthood
HMMMMMMMM wonder why?????
doomsdae says
We do have some like, Cardinal Burke (who’s getting blasted by the left wing of the Catholic church) Cardinal Pell, Archbishop Chaput and at least a dozen more that are speaking in “TRUTh” in love.
The Pope we have currently, well, I question where he stands and from what I read from credible websites and see, I am disappointed. The Synod that’s coming up will bring out the “TRUTH” about where this Pope stands. Personally, he’s quite the liberal.
Rob Porter says
Increasingly under the dismal what passes for leadership of Pope Francis, the Catholic Churches degenerates into chaos. Good men like Cardinal Burke get demoted and mediocrities who seem to have little knowledge of Catholic and Christian teaching, let alone true faith, get promoted.
With his ignorant, dishonest and perverse views Fr. Murray Watson is simply a borderline imbecile. This is the type of individual who considers it clever to be stupid. Funnily enough, to me “the views of the Pope, the governments of the West, and the mainstream media” are worthy of contempt.
Read what this Fr Murray Watson has written and marvel at his ignorance and the moral equation he endeavours to draw.
Spot On says
No one knows this priest but the Pope said fairly well the same. Bear with me on this but I believe that certain people (liberals) see, hear, think, and learn only in the narrative. MSM lives in this world absent the facts. Only the narrative counts in this world. How words and events sound and feel is all liberals sense. They never see, hear, nor learn the facts. Therefore they are unable to cope with the hard facts of life and appear to be stupid to any person who is in tune with the facts. This priest could probably read the Koran 10 times over and still have the same opinion because he would overlook the facts. He would essentially see what he wants to see. Probably too, his family’s narrative of factual people was that they are hateful and uncaring. The world is a massive collection of facts and events and conservatives who value the facts must always fight to keep liberals out of power. Priests like this will always be held out by the liberal MSM. Muslims are also always very clever to exploit this weakness of liberals and they get a free ride in the MSM no matter the facts. They can kill Christians and Jews all day long and this priest will still think they are not getting it from the Koran.
Loves God says
There are very few contemporary Christians who view the bloody language of the Book of Revelation as license for wholesale slaughter of the wicked in Christ’s name.
The book of Revelation is more about what will be done to the believers of Jesus by the non-believers, the horrors of what will happen to many of the non-believers before there is a final showdown between righteousness (it will win) and evil (it will fail).
I’m not sure what verses he is talking about. Maybe it is a different book also named Revelation?
Bill says
There are NO Christians who have EVER read Revelation as a license to perpetrate violence. This is an obfuscating, ignorant, and dissembling ploy designed to create moral equivalency between Islam and Christianity. It also is an example of a deficiency in basic 6th grade reading comprehension.
Spot On says
“Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity.”
I really like that…but it does tip the scale a bit in favor of stupidity.
Jack Gordon says
Let’s give this priest his due: he abandoned the priesthood. Would that others of his tribe would do the same. The Faith is richer without them.
andrew says
This is what I have to say to Fr. Murray Watson. ARE YOU NUTS….GO TELL THAT TO YOUR FELLOW CHRISTIAN BROTHERS AND SISTERS IN THE MIDDLE EAST; THEY WILL SAY OTHERWISE. The Koran does say in black and white, to KILL, MURDER, CHEAYT, LIE, STEAL, SEX WITH CHILDREN ( WHICH IS SO SICK, EVEN TYPING THIS OUT), TREAT WOMEN AS GARBAGE, TO ALL JEWS, CHRISTIANS, AND NON-MUSLIMS.
Fr. I suggest you reread the Koran, and other cult material from this sect. Unless you are truly, deaf dumb, and blind.
May God have mercy on you
Bill says
Raymond Ibrahim wrote an excellent article on the difference between the Protestant Reformation and the “Islamic reformation.” Both have placed a great emphasis on a literal interpretation of the text. Both have place an emphasis on access to the sacred texts by the masses and not exclusively in the hands of scholars or clerics. Both have had the OPPOSITE effects. To quote Mr. Ibrahim:
“It is precisely because Christian scriptural literalism lends itself to religious freedom, tolerance, and the dignity of women, that Western civilization developed the way it did—despite the nonstop propaganda campaign emanating from academia, Hollywood, and other major media that says otherwise.
And it is precisely because Islamic scriptural literalism is at odds with religious freedom, tolerance, and the dignity of women, that Islamic civilization is the way it is—despite the nonstop propaganda campaign emanating from academia, Hollywood, and other major media that says otherwise.”
http://www.raymondibrahim.com/islam/islams-protestant-reformation/
TH says
One wonders where got any degree in Biblical Studies. He probably did’t and may be a self-styled Biblical scholar. Anyone who has even a cursory knowledge of Biblical exegesis would never make this statement:
““We should not ascribe vile behavior to misreadings of the canon,” the argument goes, because that sense of hatred and violence is actually at the heart of religions like Judaism, Christianity and Islam — whose scriptures include some admittedly stomach-turning passages”. The fact is that all such Biblical texts have to be studied with the help of the historical/critical method and the cultural context. Besides, much of what is ascribed to Yahveh in the Bible is done in the sense that he is the first cause and secondary causes are not taken into account. For instance, the narration of a lightening campaign by Joshua in the Book named after him, is most likely not the case, rather the people went to the higher and remoter places which were not inhabited, as other texts imply. Then as for Christianity, the whole of the Old Testament is reinterpreted in the light of Christ, so that possible violent texts, are either historical narrations or alegorical. This reinterpretation was undertaken from the very beginning by St. Paul. There is nothing violent about the New Testament, so a reinterpretation of the Old Testament in the light of Jesus Christ reinterprets any violent passages or contextualizes them.The dietary prescriptions are simply eliminated. The sabbath is replaced by Sunday. The Jewish Pasch is no longer celebrated and is replaced by the Christian Pasch. There is no need for any Temple as Jesus is the true temple as his his Church etc.
This guy hasn’t a clue about the Bible if he stated what the above quote indicates. He has bought into the Islamic propaganda regarding it. Not surprising that he has left the priesthood.
Dajjal says
“desire to use them to sanction and justify our behavior” Moe created the Koran for that purpose. His child bride knew it: Bukhari 6.60.311. Koran tells us it is perfected, immutable and clear. It also proscribes selectivity. Who can interpret it but he man who revealed it? Bukhari 1.8.387 confirms the imperatives in Al-Anfal & At-Taubah. Case closed.
But, without believers who seek to implement it, the Koran would be harmless. Believers are defined in 9.111 & 49.15: those who fight in Allah’s cause.
Conof Chi says
Was he ever a TRUE priest??