Socrates Posted May 28, 2006 Posted May 28, 2006 [quote name='kujo' post='990804' date='May 26 2006, 12:42 AM'] I respect your viewpoint, and agree with the notion of the "liberal media" being predominantly apologetic towards Muslims; however, to say that Muslims have Christian blood on their hands without acknowledging that we Catholics have the blood of Muslims, Jews, and various other "pagans" on our hands as well, is to be historically-remiss (Remember the Crusades? Remember the Inquisition?). You will not find a more fierce-defender of our Mother Church than I; however, as you said, it is important that we read history. Furthermore, as Musturde said, true Muslims do not carry out these terrorist attacks. Rather, "fundamentalists" are saying that the "infidels" (the U.S., Israel, and even some of their own countrymen) must be purged from the face of this earth. And, instead of isolating these whack-jobs and aligning ourselves with the average Muslim, we, the "infidels," continue to alienate ALL Muslims, thus allowing the "extremists" to continue spreading their message of hate. Sorry for the diatribe...I'm a poli-sci major. [/quote] As a History major, I can say this is not exactly historically accurate. The Crusades began after the Muslim Turks had invaded the Holy Land, killing and oppressing Christians there, and keeping Christian pilgrims from being able to peacefully visit the holy places there. Sometimes the Crusaders did less-than-honorable things (as unfortunately happens in any war), but the cause of the Crusades was just, and was a response to violent Muslim aggression. The Inquisition did not have the purpose of killing Muslims. The issue involved "false conversos" - Muslims pretending to be Christian converts, who in reality were still Muslim, and acting against the Church. They would only be killed if after making a public profession of Faith, they were found to have continued Muslim practices. The Inquisition was actually a very just and impartial court for the times, and many accused begged to go before the Inquisition, rather than be tried in secular courts. This also needs to be put in historical context. Spain had just completed a long and arduous 600-year "Reconquista" against the Muslim Moors who had invaded and conquered much of Spain by military force. Christians were oppressed by the Muslim rulers. Gradually, over 600 years, the Christians gained back all of Spain. And Islam itself was originally spread by violent military conquest, in which those attacked by the Muslims had to either submit to Islam or die. Thus so-called Muslim "Fundamentalists" are much closer in practice to Mohammed and the original Muslims. Islam has historically been far from a "religion of peace," and in most violent conflicts between Christianity and Islam, the Muslims were the original aggressors.
Mateo el Feo Posted May 28, 2006 Posted May 28, 2006 [quote name='Era Might' post='991426' date='May 27 2006, 11:19 AM'] I have to agree with musturde. Muslims are fast becoming the new Jews, the object of fear and scapegoating by Christians.[/quote]You've really got to be kidding about this. Muslims, acting for their government or as vigilantes, are [i]killing[/i] Christians and other non-Muslims the world over, as a continuation of their 1400-year tradition. This intolerance is a central part of Islamic jurisprudence. To try to make Muslims in the West out to be the "victims" of Christian scapegoating is crazy. Believe me, if Muslims dealt with institutional and mob harrasment like non-Muslims in Muslim majority countries ([url="http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16274"]article[/url]), I'd start having sympathy for them. Incredibly, while Christians are being persecuted in a variety of Muslim countries, Western governments are bending over backwards for the fifth-column of Muslim immigrants in their country. They pay for the construction of Mosques, they give them welfare hand-outs, etc, etc. In the Arab world, in contrast, there was a huge uproar when one of the Persian Gulf countries donated land for a church or two in the country for foreigner workers. [quote]The Church is committed to peace and dialogue with Muslims, and she does not believe they are incapable of reciprocating.[/quote]I've been reading Cardinal Pell, along with periodic statements out of the Vatican, and I can tell you that the Church's statements aren't terribly optimistic about the progress of Christian freedom in Muslim countries. Primarily, the Church hopes that a moderate Islam will grant a more bearable second-class citizenship for non-Muslims in the Muslim world ([url="http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/004185.php"]article #1[/url], [url="http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10582"]article #2[/url])...and it doesn't want the Muslims in Europe to destroy the continent with their riots. ([url="http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=10144"]article[/url]) [quote]We as Christians have our own history of terrorism (against Jews, particularly, but also, for example, the KKK).[/quote]Ironically, the KKK was an extremely anti-Catholic organization ([url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kkk"]see this link[/url]). I'm certainly not taking the blame as a Christian for that nutty organization. There is also another difference: nowhere in the Holy Bible can one find support for the cause of white racism. On the other hand, in the Quran... [quote]We would not like to be defined by the excess of other Christians, and we should return the same courtesy to truly religious Muslims.[/quote]We could ignore all of the terrorist acts commited by "false" Muslims. And we ignore the worldwide cartoon protests which attacked anything remotely Christian. After all that, we still have an entire Middle East region with governments (both nominally secular and religious) which legally relegates non-Muslims to second-class citizenship? So, even in a country without the threat of rioting thugs, the government will make sure that non-Muslims know their place. Here is some of the "coutesy" that Muslim governments show their non-Muslim citizens: 1) In some countries it is illegal to convert from Islam to another religion. 2) In some countries, Muslims get priority over non-Muslims in child-custody 3) In some countries, it is illegal for non-Muslims to be present in certain cities. 4) In some countries, the Holy Bible is forbidden and treated as contraband 5) In some countries, non-Muslim houses of worship may not be built. 6) In some countries, non-Muslim houses of worship may not be repaired when damaged. Do Muslims in the West have to deal with these governmental restrictions? No. We Christians can play the game of trying to figure out who the "true" Muslims are. But, even if we ignore all the Muslims who commit terrorist acts, there are oceans of Muslim protestors and Muslims defending this system of subjugation of non-Muslims to second-class status. And, if my words are false, where are the throngs of "true" Muslims, demanding equality for non-Muslims? As a parallel, recall the fight for the abolition of slavery and for racial equality under the law in the US. Neither of those battles could have been won if not for the many whites who fought with blacks for their just cause. If you guys are going to have the presumption that you can identify certain Muslims as "false" Muslims, it might be a little helpful if you would share who you thought were "true" Muslims. Because, it sure seems like they are an endangered species in the Middle East. ([url="http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16097"]links to article #1[/url], [url="http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10665"]article #2[/url], [url="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40255"]article #3[/url]) If you spoke with a "false" Muslim, and he quoted the following verse from the Quran, how would you persuade him to be a "true" Muslim? ([url="http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/QURAN/9.htm#29"]link to Quran 9:29[/url]) [quote name=' Quran 9:29']Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.[/quote] The Quran gives non-Muslim monotheists three choices: convert to Islam, pay a tax and accept second-class citizenship, or die. Maybe we'd better stop deluding ourselves into thinking that people are just misinterpreting the Quran, and start dealing with the possibility that these people are trying to follow the clear message of their prophet ([url="http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=4203"]article[/url]). My suspicion is that you are not hoping for them to become "true" Muslims; instead, you're asking them to abandon the clear guidance of their holy book. [quote]Oh, and about the word "Allah", I do find it interesting that when the media translates terrorist messages, they never translate "Allah" as "God". They always leave it as "Allah". It reinforces that these are Arabs, and that these are Muslims, in the popular eye, and I think it reinforces prejudice. Christian arabs also worship "Allah". [/quote]The media is simply respecting the Muslim practice of not translating the term. If you speak English with them, Christian Arabs will tell you that they worship God, and not "Allah." If you speak English with a Muslim, they will speak of Allah. As an aside, I have heard that the historical practice of Christian Arabs calling the God of the Bible "Allah" came about with a bit of arm-twisting from their Muslim rulers. I think that explanation has some merit. In fact, I found that Muslims try their best to pepper their discussions with Arabic terms.
Lounge Daddy Posted May 28, 2006 Posted May 28, 2006 [quote name='kujo' post='990804' date='May 26 2006, 02:42 AM'] I respect your viewpoint, and agree with the notion of the "liberal media" being predominantly apologetic towards Muslims; however, to say that Muslims have Christian blood on their hands without acknowledging that we Catholics have the blood of Muslims, Jews, and various other "pagans" on our hands as well, is to be historically-remiss (Remember the Crusades? Remember the Inquisition?). You will not find a more fierce-defender of our Mother Church than I; however, as you said, it is important that we read history... [/quote] yes - it is important to know history and history shows some people who called themselves Catholics did some bad things - our Church leaders have since apologised for them Islam, however was founded on violence --- converting by the sword has been practiced and recommended by it's LEADERSHIP all the way back to Mohhamed [quote] Mohammed provoked persecution which drove him from Mecca to Medina in 622, the year of the Hejira (Flight) and the beginning of the Mohammedan Era. At Medina he was recognized as the prophet of God, and his followers increased. He took the field against his enemies, conquered several Arabian, Jewish, and Christian tribes, entered Mecca in triumph in 630, demolished the idols of the Kaaba, became master of Arabia, and finally united all the tribes under one emblem and one religion. [/quote] [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10424a.htm"]--- from article HERE[/url] the above quote pretty much sums up the start of "the religion of peace" ...and the plan remains the same for uniting the reast of the world under one banner [quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='991727' date='May 28 2006, 12:29 AM'] Here is some of the "coutesy" that Muslim governments show their non-Muslim citizens: 1) In some countries it is illegal to convert from Islam to another religion. 2) In some countries, Muslims get priority over non-Muslims in child-custody 3) In some countries, it is illegal for non-Muslims to be present in certain cities. 4) In some countries, the Holy Bible is forbidden and treated as contraband 5) In some countries, non-Muslim houses of worship may not be built. 6) In some countries, non-Muslim houses of worship may not be repaired when damaged. The Quran gives non-Muslim monotheists three choices: convert to Islam, pay a tax and accept second-class citizenship, or die. Maybe we'd better stop deluding ourselves into thinking that people are just misinterpreting the Quran, and start dealing with the possibility that these people are trying to follow the clear message of their prophet ([url="http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=4203"]article[/url]). My suspicion is that you are not hoping for them to become "true" Muslims; instead, you're asking them to abandon the clear guidance of their holy book. [/quote] Great comments I'm glad you pointed all this out - i was gonna go hunting for some of those links myself it's important to know that they see the church and state as one entity... which is why thier courts are made up of clerics and the state will put Christian converts and practicing homosexuals and other acts forbidden by Islam to death [quote name='musturde' post='990337' date='May 25 2006, 12:06 PM'] The Koran, for example, does not support killing ANY innocent life (terrorism = killing). Also, a Jihad is mostly issued if the State is under attack or Muslims are being oppressed for their religion. This is a true Jihad. The many people who were executed and kidnapped were not killed by true Muslims. The Koran talks against the killing of hostages and encourages treating them well in order to convert them. [/quote] ya... i think you missed some passages if you went through the Koran, and maybe missed a bit about the history of Islam sorry, dude
Era Might Posted May 28, 2006 Posted May 28, 2006 (edited) [quote]You've really got to be kidding about this. Muslims, acting for their government or as vigilantes, are [i]killing[/i] Christians and other non-Muslims the world over, as a continuation of their 1400-year tradition. This intolerance is a central part of Islamic jurisprudence. To try to make Muslims in the West out to be the "victims" of Christian scapegoating is crazy.[/quote] "Muslims" are killing Christians? That's like saying "blacks" are killing whites. Are there black people who kill white people? Of course. The problem with stereotype and prejudice is that fact becomes a broad stroke. The idea that every Muslim is out to bomb America is as repulsive as the idea that every Jew is a greedy extortionist. [quote]Believe me, if Muslims dealt with institutional and mob harrasment like non-Muslims in Muslim majority countries ([url="http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16274"]article[/url]), I'd start having sympathy for them. Incredibly, while Christians are being persecuted in a variety of Muslim countries, Western governments are bending over backwards for the fifth-column of Muslim immigrants in their country. They pay for the construction of Mosques, they give them welfare hand-outs, etc, etc. In the Arab world, in contrast, there was a huge uproar when one of the Persian Gulf countries donated land for a church or two in the country for foreigner workers. I've been reading Cardinal Pell, along with periodic statements out of the Vatican, and I can tell you that the Church's statements aren't terribly optimistic about the progress of Christian freedom in Muslim countries.[/quote] Rome was not built in a day. Christians terrorized Jews for CENTURIES. It didn't matter what the Popes said. Popular hate and terrorism is a hard thing to root out, and it was only in the latter 20th century that the Christian world was able to do so in a broad way (incidentally, after many Christians helped perpetrate the massacre of 6 million Jews). [quote]Ironically, the KKK was an extremely anti-Catholic organization[/quote] They were still a Christian group. And they equally offended Protestant ideal as they did Catholic. That's the problem. People who hate in any religion cloak themselves in piety, and perpetrate their crimes in the name of God. Terrorists should no more speak for every Muslim than the KKK should speak for every Christian. Islam is not a monolithic force. There are different "denominations" and distinctions, and not every Muslim is a bomb wielding terrorist. We are fortunate here in the West that Muslims are usually not swept up in Arab nationalism, and so we are able to dialogue and befriend one another. [quote]I'm certainly not taking the blame as a Christian for that nutty organization. There is also another difference: nowhere in the Holy Bible can one find support for the cause of white racism. On the other hand, in the Quran...[/quote] I'm glad your not taking the blame for the KKK, and ordinary Muslims should not take the blame for Al Quaeda. And believe me, the KKK found plenty of "support" for "white racism" in the Bible, just as Osama Bin Laden finds plenty of support for terrorism in the Koran. One example from a piece of Mormon literature in the '50s: [quote]We know the circumstances under which the posterity of Cain (and later of Ham) were cursed with what we call Negroid racial characteristics.[/quote] You may laugh at their interpretation, just as many Muslims laugh at Osama Bin Laden's interpretation of the Koran. But you can read whatever you want into a holy book. Why did Christians hate Jews for so many centuries? Because (supposedly) the Bible says they were a "cursed race". They were filthy, greedy, corrupt liars. Hatred and terrorism (like child abuse) knows no religious boundary. [quote]We could ignore all of the terrorist acts commited by "false" Muslims. And we ignore the worldwide cartoon protests which attacked anything remotely Christian. After all that, we still have an entire Middle East region with governments (both nominally secular and religious) which legally relegates non-Muslims to second-class citizenship? So, even in a country without the threat of rioting thugs, the government will make sure that non-Muslims know their place.[/quote] Muslim violence in the Middle East is largely Arab nationalism cloaked in religious fervor. Why couldn't the Popes quelch murderous anti-semitic mobs throughout the centuries? Again, because when a distorted view of religion and race ingrains itself in the popular mindset, it is hard to root out. I don't disagree that there is a sickness in a much of the Muslim world. Where I disagree is that this is proof that Muslims cannot be peaceful people, that we cannot co-exist. There was a similar sickness in the Christian world at one point. Our answer to this current sickness must be the answer given by the Church; dialogue, peace, and charity. We can't conquer rabid arab nationalism by beating our chests and calling for a holy war. We have to be brothers with peaceful Muslims in our own community, and work to overcome fear, hate, and prejudice. Why are so many Arabs afraid of the West (and, by extension, Christianity)? Because they don't know us, so they fear us. We are from another world to them, and they feel they are under attack. Osama Bin Laden comes along and harnesses that fear through hate, and presto, you have mass riots on your hand. It is nothing that Adolf Hitler didn't do with Christians. [quote]If you guys are going to have the presumption that you can identify certain Muslims as "false" Muslims, it might be a little helpful if you would share who you thought were "true" Muslims. Because, it sure seems like they are an endangered species in the Middle East.[/quote] There is no Islamic "Magisterium". Osama Bin Laden does not speak for the Muslim world. He has his own opinions, just as the KKK did among Christians. But his is far from the only one. And maybe we should ask some American soldiers in Iraq why they are fighting for its freedom? If every Muslim wants to kill Christians, why would they want to help them? All these pictures we see of Iraqui Muslims interacting peacefully and graciously with American troops, are they doctored? I guess it IS possible for Muslims in the Arab world to respect Christians and even the West, when they haven't been seduced by Arab nationalism and false religious piety. [quote]If you spoke with a "false" Muslim, and he quoted the following verse from the Quran, how would you persuade him to be a "true" Muslim?[/quote] I am not a Muslim or a Muslim scholar. It is not for me to tell a Muslim what his religion teaches. What I can do, what Pope Benedict has done, is appeal to our common values as human beings, and let them discern for themselves how those can be integrated into their belief system. My personal hope is always that they will come to know Christ. [quote]My suspicion is that you are not hoping for them to become "true" Muslims; instead, you're asking them to abandon the clear guidance of their holy book.[/quote] Again, that's not for me to say, anymore than I want Muslims to tell me how to understand God's call to Moses to slaughter his enemies. Is it still valid today? Can I still slaughter my enemies like Moses? Those are questions Christians have to answer, just as Muslims have questions to answer about their own holy book. [quote]The media is simply respecting the Muslim practice of not translating the term. If you speak English with them, Christian Arabs will tell you that they worship God, and not "Allah." If you speak English with a Muslim, they will speak of Allah. As an aside, I have heard that the historical practice of Christian Arabs calling the God of the Bible "Allah" came about with a bit of arm-twisting from their Muslim rulers. I think that explanation has some merit. In fact, I found that Muslims try their best to pepper their discussions with Arabic terms.[/quote] English-speaking Muslims use the word "Allah" for the same reason Catholics use the word "Pax". Arabic is part of their religious heritage, just as Latin is part of our religious heritage as Catholics. When the Pope delivers a message in Latin, the media translates it. Christian and Muslim Arabs all worship "Allah". The non-translation by the media is curious in my book, because their average reader is probably not a Muslim. Using the Arabic word reinforces that these people are Arabs and Muslims. They are "other", not part of our society, and that reinforces our own fear and prejudice. Edited May 28, 2006 by Era Might
Mateo el Feo Posted May 28, 2006 Posted May 28, 2006 [quote name='Era Might' post='991788' date='May 28 2006, 08:37 AM']"Muslims" are killing Christians? That's like saying "blacks" are killing whites. Are there black people who kill white people? Of course. The problem with stereotype and prejudice is that fact becomes a broad stroke. The idea that every Muslim is out to bomb America is as repulsive as the idea that every Jew is a greedy extortionist.[/quote]If a white person killed a black person based on skin color, it is perfectly appropriate to mention race. If a Muslim believes himself to be following the Quran when he kills a non-Muslim, it is appropriate to mention religion. The risk of listeners who might "paint with broad strokes" is no reason to obfuscate the facts. [quote]Rome was not built in a day. Christians terrorized Jews for CENTURIES. It didn't matter what the Popes said.[/quote]Actually, it is important what the popes have said. When you read papal writings, there really aren't any calls to "terrorize the Jews." While papal writings haven't been 100% pro-Jewish, Jewish rabbis haven't been 100% pro-Christian in the course of the last 2000 years. Of course, this is because they believe that they hold the fullness of Truth. As far as "Rome was not built in a day" goes, I find it disconcerting that Islam seems to be slowly moving [i]away [/i] from the goal that Westerners have (i.e. a tolerant brand of Islam). [quote]Popular hate and terrorism is a hard thing to root out, and it was only in the latter 20th century that the Christian world was able to do so in a broad way (incidentally, after many Christians helped perpetrate the massacre of 6 million Jews).[/quote]Once again, Catholics were fighting against Nazism, and Nazism saw Christianity and the Catholic Church as its enemy, not its foundation. On a personal note, my father's priest--a german--had to stop visiting his homeland because of the threats against his life because of the Nazis. All in all, I think even Hollywood has this story correct, in bringing us movies like [url="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0108052/"]Schindler's List (link)[/url] and [url="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0253474/"]The Pianist (link)[/url], which portray Christians resisting Nazism. [quote]They were still a Christian group. And they equally offended Protestant ideal as they did Catholic. That's the problem. People who hate in any religion cloak themselves in piety, and perpetrate their crimes in the name of God.[/quote]The Nazi ideology--not Christianity--led to these attrocities. Nazism had no use for Christianity except when the Churches could be used as an instrument to spread their ideology. National Socialism has nothing to do with Christianity and everything to do with a [b]post-Christian [/b] society founded in science and utilitarianism. For example, reading from the Wiki ([url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism"]link[/url]):[quote]Hitler extended his rationalizations into religious doctrine, claiming that those who agreed with and taught his "truths", were "true" or "master" religions, because they would "create mastery" by avoiding comforting lies. Those who preached love and tolerance, "in contravention to the facts", were said to be "slave" or "false" religions. The man who recognized these "truths", Hitler continued, was said to be a "natural leader", and those who denied it were said to be "natural slaves". "Slaves" – especially intelligent ones, he claimed – were always attempting to hinder their masters by promoting false religious and political doctrines. [b]The ideological roots which became German "National Socialism" were based on numerous sources in European history, drawing especially from Romantic 19th Century idealism, and from a biological reading of Friedrich Nietzsche's thoughts on "breeding upwards" toward the goal of an Übermensch (Superhuman). [/b] Hitler was an avid reader and received ideas that were later to influence Nazism from traceable publications, such as those of the Germanenorden (Germanic Order) or the Thule society. He also adopted many populist ideas such as limiting profits, abolishing rents and generously increasing social benefits - but only for Germans.[/quote]I suspect that most Christians who fought on the same side as the Nazis (e.g. the Italians, Germans, etc), chose that Communism was a greater threat to the Faith. The communists carried out large scale church-destruction and massacres against Christians. The Nazis, simply went about its attack more slowly, and with more subtlety. [quote]Terrorists should no more speak for every Muslim than the KKK should speak for every Christian.[/quote]This is a strawman argument. For what it's worth, I don't know anyone who believes that Al Qaeda speaks for all Muslims. There is another problem with the comparison you made. Muslim terrorists are following the Quran and the example of Muhammed. The KKK receives none of its inspiration from the Bible or the example of Our Lord. Your concern seems to be centered on the idea that any negative of Islam should be swept under the rug for fear that someone might generalize. [quote]Islam is not a monolithic force. There are different "denominations" and distinctions, and not every Muslim is a bomb wielding terrorist.[/quote]We'll just have to agree on this. [quote]We are fortunate here in the West that Muslims are usually not swept up in Arab nationalism, and so we are able to dialogue and befriend one another.[/quote]I am not concerned about Arab nationalism. The terrorists (along with the constant world-wide violent protests) have commited acts against the West because of religion, not race/ethnicity. [quote]I'm glad your not taking the blame for the KKK, and ordinary Muslims should not take the blame for Al Quaeda. And believe me, the KKK found plenty of "support" for "white racism" in the Bible, just as Osama Bin Laden finds plenty of support for terrorism in the Koran.[/quote] Please, feel free to quote the Bible and try to find the arguments that the KKK uses, or just share a web link if you find a good one. The KKK was a political organization, with political (not religious) foundations. In contrast to the Bible's alleged "support for white racism," the Quran is [i]explicit [/i] how it expects Muslims to treat non-Muslims. It's not the product of some backwater Imam's misinterpretation of the Quran. PS: I'm splitting up my post, because I was having trouble with tags.
Mateo el Feo Posted May 28, 2006 Posted May 28, 2006 (edited) [quote]One example from a piece of Mormon literature in the '50s:[/quote]Is this a mistype? [quote]You may laugh at their interpretation, just as many Muslims laugh at Osama Bin Laden's interpretation of the Koran. But you can read whatever you want into a holy book. Why did Christians hate Jews for so many centuries? Because (supposedly) the Bible says they were a "cursed race". They were filthy, greedy, corrupt liars. Hatred and terrorism (like child abuse) knows no religious boundary.[/quote]First, I'm not laughing at the KKK. The KKK has no Biblical argument for its three prejudices (Blacks, Jews, and Catholics). Second, both the Quran's message and the hadith are clear that non-Muslims should be treated as second class citizens. This is mainstream Islam, not merely an extreme view of Osama bin Laden. You'll notice that the citations that I made above were all practices of Muslim governments. I did this because it's a red herring to try to steer the argument to something like "Osama bin Laden doesn't represent all Muslims." [quote]Muslim violence in the Middle East is largely Arab nationalism cloaked in religious fervor. Why couldn't the Popes quelch murderous anti-semitic mobs throughout the centuries? Again, because when a distorted view of religion and race ingrains itself in the popular mindset, it is hard to root out.[/quote] Once again, there is a significant difference. The popes spoke out against anti-semitism. As an example to contrast Christian anti-semitism and Muslim anti-semitism, I give the following from Pope Gregory X in 1272 ([url="http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Greg10/g10jprot.htm"]link[/url]): [quote]Inasmuch as the Jews are not able to bear witness against the Christians, we decree furthermore that the testimony of Christians against Jews shall not be valid unless there is among these Christians some Jew who is there for the purpose of offering testimony.[/quote] Muslim Jurisprudence belittles or disregards the testimony of non-Muslims, while a Muslims testimony is just about always accepted. In this writing, the Pope "levels the playing field" by actually saying that limits should be placed on the validity of testimony of Christians against Jews. Remember, this writing is over 700 years old. I'd recommend that you all read it in its entirety, so you might realize that legitimate treatment of the Jewish people didn't just appear out of thin air at the Second Vatican Council (i.e. the document Nostra Aetate). I'd love to see Al Azhar or some other respected Islamic institution come out with a statement that repudiates the various methods of persecution employed by Muslim governments and mobs. Unfortunately, I suspect that the Quran and Hadith themselves are the source of these persecutions. [quote]I don't disagree that there is a sickness in a much of the Muslim world. Where I disagree is that this is proof that Muslims cannot be peaceful people, that we cannot co-exist.[/quote]I don't think this is a disagreement. I haven't said that Muslims "cannot be a peaceful people." In fact, I live in the hope that we all can co-exist in peace. [quote]There was a similar sickness in the Christian world at one point. Our answer to this current sickness must be the answer given by the Church; dialogue, peace, and charity. We can't conquer rabid arab nationalism by beating our chests and calling for a holy war.[/quote] We are not fighting against Arab Nationalism. I'm an Arab. I should know. [quote]We have to be brothers with peaceful Muslims in our own community, and work to overcome fear, hate, and prejudice. Why are so many Arabs afraid of the West (and, by extension, Christianity)? Because they don't know us, so they fear us. We are from another world to them, and they feel they are under attack. Osama Bin Laden comes along and harnesses that fear through hate, and presto, you have mass riots on your hand. It is nothing that Adolf Hitler didn't do with Christians.[/quote]Fair enough. But when entire countries restrict non-Muslims to the point that they cannot even live in the country, how are those Muslims going to "get to know us?" Also, when Saudi Arabia is setting up Islamic schools (madrasas) all over the Western World, how do you think these isolated Muslim children are going to "get to know us?" Edited May 28, 2006 by Mateo el Feo
Mateo el Feo Posted May 28, 2006 Posted May 28, 2006 [quote]There is no Islamic "Magisterium". Osama Bin Laden does not speak for the Muslim world. He has his own opinions, just as the KKK did among Christians. But his is far from the only one.[/quote] Red Herring. Let's not worry about poor Osama. For the sake of discussion, let's place him in the proverbial Pakistani cave. [quote]And maybe we should ask some American soldiers in Iraq why they are fighting for its freedom? If every Muslim wants to kill Christians, why would they want to help them? All these pictures we see of Iraqui Muslims interacting peacefully and graciously with American troops, are they doctored? I guess it IS possible for Muslims in the Arab world to respect Christians and even the West, when they haven't been seduced by Arab nationalism and false religious piety.[/quote] I don't think I've spoken in terms such as "every Muslim believes X," or "every Muslim does Y." On the other hand, we [i]should [/i] speak of patterns of belief and behavior. And we should certainly discuss the contents of the Quran. But to discount every fact I've presented with statements like "all Muslims don't believe the same thing" is disingenuous. Regarding what you say is the seduction of "false religious piety," could you explain how you came to the conclusion that the examples of discrimination against non-Muslims are all a result of "false" piety? As you say, there is no "Islamic Magesterium" (although, there is Al Azhar in Egypt, and some other places where statements are issued with the "consensus blessing" of Muslim scholars). Could you cite where Al Azhar or some other authority has stated that discrimination against non-Muslims is contrary to the teachings of the Quran and/or the Hadith? [quote]I am not a Muslim or a Muslim scholar. It is not for me to tell a Muslim what his religion teaches.[/quote]My concern is that some Christians think that they can tell Muslims what their religion teaches, and label some as "false Muslims." [quote]What I can do, what Pope Benedict has done, is appeal to our common values as human beings, and let them discern for themselves how those can be integrated into their belief system. My personal hope is always that they will come to know Christ.[/quote]We can be conciliatory without ignoring a reality that Christians face persecution from sincere Muslims who are inspired by their religion to inflict that persecution. When the pope speaks, he must always remember that his words can have a huge impact on the status of vulnerable Christian communities in Middle East. Considering this fact, it's not surprising that he speaks with a conciliatory tone. What [i]is [/i] surprising is the candor of recent Vatican statements about the need for Islam to clean up its act. In today's Catholic news is the following article: [url="http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=3343"]http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=3343[/url] [quote]Again, that's not for me to say, anymore than I want Muslims to tell me how to understand God's call to Moses to slaughter his enemies. Is it still valid today? Can I still slaughter my enemies like Moses? Those are questions Christians have to answer, just as Muslims have questions to answer about their own holy book.[/quote] This is another red herring. The warfare that occured in the Old Testament discusses historical events. They are not mandates to kill from God for all future generations, and these texts have [i]never [/i] been used in Christian or Jewish theology. There is no equivelant to violent expansionist Jihad in Christianity or Judaism. In contrast, the words of the Quran are not a description of historical events. They are commands from Allah for how faithful Muslims should behave. [quote]English-speaking Muslims use the word "Allah" for the same reason Catholics use the word "Pax". Arabic is part of their religious heritage, just as Latin is part of our religious heritage as Catholics. When the Pope delivers a message in Latin, the media translates it. Christian and Muslim Arabs all worship "Allah". The non-translation by the media is curious in my book, because their average reader is probably not a Muslim. Using the Arabic word reinforces that these people are Arabs and Muslims. They are "other", not part of our society, and that reinforces our own fear and prejudice.[/quote]I've tried to be precise in my description of the use of the term "Allah" among Christians and Muslims. As for the equating to Latin to Arabic, I don't think that the importance of the Latin Language approaches the importance of Classical Arabic for Muslims. Christians have always had multiple important languages, including Latin, Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, Coptic, Ethiopic, to name a few. Just to conclude, here's an excellent introduction for Catholics to Islam: [url="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0965922855/104-5399336-4078340?v=glance&n=283155"]Inside Islam: A Guide for Catholics[/url] PS: I'm sorry for the many long posts. I must have an unconscious desire to increase my post count.
Era Might Posted May 28, 2006 Posted May 28, 2006 [quote]If a white person killed a black person based on skin color, it is perfectly appropriate to mention race. If a Muslim believes himself to be following the Quran when he kills a non-Muslim, it is appropriate to mention religion. The risk of listeners who might "paint with broad strokes" is no reason to obfuscate the facts.[/quote] There's nothing wrong with saying someone is black, that someone is Muslim, or that a minister who rapes a child is a Catholic Priest. My point is about the growing popular sentiment in this country. When a white woman clutches her purse because she sees a black person, there's something wrong there. When someone refuses to enter a Catholic Church because they're afraid the Priest will rape their children, there's something wrong there. And when we talk about "Muslims" and "Islam" as if it's some monolithic force, and every Muslim is a towelhead with a bomb under his shirt, there's something wrong there. That is where we are headed as a society if we allow fearful rhetoric about Muslims to continue. This isn't about putting our heads in the sand, but about recognizing that "Muslims" are not terrorists anymore than "Priests" are child molesters. There are Muslim terrorists, and there are clerical abusers. But if we are going to have any semblance of dialogue, we have to respect that one can be Muslim and peaceful, and there are millions of such people on the face of this earth. Zealous rhetoric does not lead to respect and understanding; it simply foments the worst elements of a particular group. [quote]Actually, it is important what the popes have said. When you read papal writings, there really aren't any calls to "terrorize the Jews." While papal writings haven't been 100% pro-Jewish, Jewish rabbis haven't been 100% pro-Christian in the course of the last 2000 years. Of course, this is because they believe that they hold the fullness of Truth.[/quote] Of course there were no Papal calls to exterminate Jews. That's just my point. No matter what the Popes did for centuries, they couldn't squelch murderous Christian mobs. Why? Because when you mix hatred and false piety in the popular arena, you have an uncontrollable force. That is what we have right now in the Arab world, and it is wrong to simply put the blame on Islam as a religion, because this is not by and large about true religious piety. Hatred rarely is. Does that mean that there is not a history of violence in Islam? No. There is a history of violence in Judaism too. If Christians are allowed to contextualize that history, why aren't Muslims? [quote]As far as "Rome was not built in a day" goes, I find it disconcerting that Islam seems to be slowly moving [i]away [/i] from the goal that Westerners have (i.e. a tolerant brand of Islam). Once again, Catholics were fighting against Nazism, and Nazism saw Christianity and the Catholic Church as its enemy, not its foundation. On a personal note, my father's priest--a german--had to stop visiting his homeland because of the threats against his life because of the Nazis. All in all, I think even Hollywood has this story correct, in bringing us movies like [url="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0108052/"]Schindler's List (link)[/url] and [url="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0253474/"]The Pianist (link)[/url], which portray Christians resisting Nazism.[/quote] The Church existed for 1900 years before it was really able to root out anti-Semitic hatred among its people; and that was thanks in large part to the peculiar circumstances of the modern world. Arabs still live in a culture that is very much pre-modern (not just culturally, but technologically as well). It is not hopeless just because they have yet to face their demons. Will they ever? That remains to be seen. But Christianity took almost two millenia to do so, so the least we can do is understand that this problem is not unique to Islam. [quote]The Nazi ideology--not Christianity--led to these attrocities. Nazism had no use for Christianity except when the Churches could be used as an instrument to spread their ideology. National Socialism has nothing to do with Christianity and everything to do with a [b]post-Christian [/b] society founded in science and utilitarianism. For example, reading from the Wiki ([url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism"]link[/url]):I suspect that most Christians who fought on the same side as the Nazis (e.g. the Italians, Germans, etc), chose that Communism was a greater threat to the Faith. The communists carried out large scale church-destruction and massacres against Christians. The Nazis, simply went about its attack more slowly, and with more subtlety. This is a strawman argument. For what it's worth, I don't know anyone who believes that Al Qaeda speaks for all Muslims. [/quote] I did not say Christianity led to the Holocaust, I said many Christians helped foster it. Whether or not Nazism was a Christian entity does nothing to erase the Christian role in the Shoah, including some of the German Bishops. Traditional Christian anti-Semitism made it acceptable for many Christians to support Nazi initiatives. What is the point here? Again, simply that popular hatred and terrorism is far from a Muslim problem. The Islamic world is currently facing it, but Christianity had to do so itself not long ago. Anti-Semitism no more demonized the Church than terrorism does Islam, because religious ideals are not founded on hatred, Christian or Muslim. [quote]There is another problem with the comparison you made. Muslim terrorists are following the Quran and the example of Muhammed. The KKK receives none of its inspiration from the Bible or the example of Our Lord. Your concern seems to be centered on the idea that any negative of Islam should be swept under the rug for fear that someone might generalize. We'll just have to agree on this. I am not concerned about Arab nationalism. The terrorists (along with the constant world-wide violent protests) have commited acts against the West because of religion, not race/ethnicity.[/quote] They are following their interpretation of the Koran and Mohammed. Why are Christians allowed to place God's command for Moses to slaughter his enemies in context, but Muslims are not afforded the same courtesy? If the Koran said something to the effect of "Happy those who seize your children and smash them against a rock" (Psalm 137:9), it would surely be plastered all over the Internet as "proof" of evil Islamic violence. But it's ok for Christians to explain the passage away. My point here is that it's not very respectful for us to define Islam for Muslims, and it's also not very respectful to take isolated passages and throw it in their face, because they can return the favor just as easily. Are there Muslims who follow an extreme form of Islam? Of course. Just as there are Christians who follow an extreme (and warped) form of Christianity. Neither group defines their respective religion. And I think it's pretty dishonest to harp on isolated and problematic passages in the Koran, when the book is by and large a treatise on worship and the spiritual life. [quote]Please, feel free to quote the Bible and try to find the arguments that the KKK uses, or just share a web link if you find a good one. The KKK was a political organization, with political (not religious) foundations. In contrast to the Bible's alleged "support for white racism," the Quran is [i]explicit [/i] how it expects Muslims to treat non-Muslims. It's not the product of some backwater Imam's misinterpretation of the Quran.[/quote] From Wikipedia: [quote]This Klan was operated as a profit-making venture by its leaders, and participated in the boom in fraternal organizations at the time. Organizers signed up hundreds of new members, who paid initiation fees and bought KKK costumes. The organizer kept half the money and sent the rest to state or national officials. [b]When the organizer was done with an area, he organized a huge rally, often with burning crosses and perhaps a ceremonial presentation of a Bible to a local Protestant minister[/b]. He left town with all the money. The local units operated like many fraternal organizations, occasionally bringing in speakers. The state and national officials had little or no control over the locals and rarely or never attempted to forge them into political activist groups.[/quote] American racism (slavery in particular) was very much biblically based. One argument was that black people were the result of God's curse on Ham (in Genesis). Americans wrote off their hatred as religious piety. They were protecting God's pure race, and his morals, from those evil animals. The KKK symbol was a burned cross, for Pete's sake. I don't think they were evoking Hinduism. And again, about the Koran, why are Christians afforded the right to place biblical violence in historical context, but not Muslims? [quote]Is this a mistype?[/quote] No. My point is that people interpret the Bible and the Koran all sorts of ways. Some Mormons thought black skin was the fruit of a curse. Some Muslims think God condones terrorism. [quote]First, I'm not laughing at the KKK. The KKK has no Biblical argument for its three prejudices (Blacks, Jews, and Catholics). Second, both the Quran's message and the hadith are clear that non-Muslims should be treated as second class citizens. This is mainstream Islam, not merely an extreme view of Osama bin Laden. You'll notice that the citations that I made above were all practices of Muslim governments. I did this because it's a red herring to try to steer the argument to something like "Osama bin Laden doesn't represent all Muslims." Once again, there is a significant difference. The popes spoke out against anti-semitism. As an example to contrast Christian anti-semitism and Muslim anti-semitism, I give the following from Pope Gregory X in 1272 ([url="http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Greg10/g10jprot.htm"]link[/url]):[/quote] Again, this is not about whether Popes spoke out against anti-Semitism, but that it flourished for 2,000 years nonetheless. Hatred and terrorism are not Muslim problems, anymore than child molestation is a Catholic problem. It just so happens that Muslims still have demons to conquer. And again, if we expect the right to contextualize our own Scriptures, we ought to return the same right to Muslims. The Old Testament was clear that Moses was told to slaughter his enemies. We believe this has to be understand in a correct sense, just as many Muslims believe "hard" passages in the Koran have to be understood in a correct sense. [quote]Muslim Jurisprudence belittles or disregards the testimony of non-Muslims, while a Muslims testimony is just about always accepted. In this writing, the Pope "levels the playing field" by actually saying that limits should be placed on the validity of testimony of Christians against Jews. Remember, this writing is over 700 years old. I'd recommend that you all read it in its entirety, so you might realize that legitimate treatment of the Jewish people didn't just appear out of thin air at the Second Vatican Council (i.e. the document Nostra Aetate).[/quote] Again, see above. My point is not about Catholic doctrine and its treatment of Judaism (a separate subject entirely). My point is about zealotry, hatred, and terrorism crossing all religious boundaries. Yes, Christians once had a problem with terrorism and murderous violence. So did Jews. And now, so do Muslims. Dialogue is the only way to help them overcome that. [quote]We are not fighting against Arab Nationalism. I'm an Arab. I should know. Fair enough. But when entire countries restrict non-Muslims to the point that they cannot even live in the country, how are those Muslims going to "get to know us?" Also, when Saudi Arabia is setting up Islamic schools (madrasas) all over the Western World, how do you think these isolated Muslim children are going to "get to know us?"[/quote] We will have to agree to disagree. The violence we see in the Islamic world is rooted in Arab nationalism, just as Christian anti-Semitism was rooted in personal hatred and a popular belief in Christian supremacy, not in authentic Christian doctrine. Does that mean none of these Arabs genuinely consider themselves Muslims? Of course not. Christian anti-Semites genuinely consider themselves Catholics. They truly thought they were on a mission from God. But their hatred was, as Pope Clement VI pointed out, ultimately cloaked in false piety, and the same is true today of militant Arabs. Islam is a useful justification, but it's ultimately not about religion, it's about hatred; of the west in particular. They feel the West is trying to conquer the Arab world, to destroy their land and their culture, and so they respond to that. It helps if they can use God's name to justify their response, and that's how terrorists whip them into a frenzy. As for how Arabs will “get to know us”, we have to continue to reach out to Muslims who live and practice their religion in peace and piety. We have to show that the West, or more importantly, Christianity, is not out to destroy or conquer the Arab world. Christianity is PART of the Arab world. Bombing them only reinforces their fear that America is out to destroy. We can start here in America by teaming up with our local Muslim communities, and working to dispel fear and prejudice. [quote]Red Herring. Let's not worry about poor Osama. For the sake of discussion, let's place him in the proverbial Pakistani cave.[/quote] It's not a red herring, because OBL is the poster boy for everything that is wrong right now. He and his associates are, as I said, whipping everyone up in a frenzy of Arab nationalism and false religious piety, and he is attempting to do what Hitler did with Christians; mobilize their nationalist hatred and justify it in God's name. [quote]I don't think I've spoken in terms such as "every Muslim believes X," or "every Muslim does Y." On the other hand, we [i]should [/i] speak of patterns of belief and behavior. And we should certainly discuss the contents of the Quran. But to discount every fact I've presented with statements like "all Muslims don't believe the same thing" is disingenuous.[/quote] I did not mean you personally. My original point (to which you responded) was about a general attitude that I see rising, and I don't like it. The rhetoric against Islam is leading us to write off what we do not know, and that is what begets prejudice. "Japs" were the enemy in WW2, so Americans had to round them up and put them in internment camps. How long before we do the same with Muslims? [quote]Regarding what you say is the seduction of "false religious piety," could you explain how you came to the conclusion that the examples of discrimination against non-Muslims are all a result of "false" piety? As you say, there is no "Islamic Magesterium" (although, there is Al Azhar in Egypt, and some other places where statements are issued with the "consensus blessing" of Muslim scholars). Could you cite where Al Azhar or some other authority has stated that discrimination against non-Muslims is contrary to the teachings of the Quran and/or the Hadith?[/quote] It's not necessary for me to cite them, because they don't speak for Islam. Their perspective could be cited if we were talking about the Islamic world as a society (and I do think they express the general sickness that plagues the Islamic world right now), but that's a different discussion from Islam as a religion. It is false religious piety because the Koran is not a murderous manual. This is something that is commonly hurled at the Talmud. Isolating passages and putting them in the worst possible light, we can concoct a pretty damnable view of a religion, any religion, including Christianity. Is the Koran perfect? Of course not. Does that mean it can't be placed in historical context? The overwhelming focus of the Koran is on personal piety, peace, and obedience to God; not war and violence. It does contain points of violence, just as the Old Testament does. Unfortunately, people want to take this and that passage, and throw it in the face of Islam. There is no attempt at true dialogue, true understanding. It's all about justifying our belligerence and holy war against Islam. [quote]My concern is that some Christians think that they can tell Muslims what their religion teaches, and label some as "false Muslims." We can be conciliatory without ignoring a reality that Christians face persecution from sincere Muslims who are inspired by their religion to inflict that persecution.[/quote] Of course there are Muslims persecuting Christians. This is part of the sickness in the Islamic world. My point is not that the Islamic world is fine and dandy, but that this problem is NOT unique to Islam. Christianity has faced the same problem, and so can Islam. [quote]When the pope speaks, he must always remember that his words can have a huge impact on the status of vulnerable Christian communities in Middle East. Considering this fact, it's not surprising that he speaks with a conciliatory tone. What [i]is [/i] surprising is the candor of recent Vatican statements about the need for Islam to clean up its act. In today's Catholic news is the following article:[/quote] What does that mean, "Islam" needs to clean up its act? This is what I can't understand. Islam is a religion. Much of the Islamic world needs to clean up its act, but "Islam" is just a religion. It can't do anything, because it only exists in the practice and interpretation of each of individual believer. Again, "Islam" is not a monolithic force. [quote]This is another red herring. The warfare that occured in the Old Testament discusses historical events. They are not mandates to kill from God for all future generations, and these texts have [i]never [/i] been used in Christian or Jewish theology. There is no equivelant to violent expansionist Jihad in Christianity or Judaism. In contrast, the words of the Quran are not a description of historical events. They are commands from Allah for how faithful Muslims should behave.[/quote] That's a fine interpretation, but it's just that, an interpretation. Who says God's mandates are not perpetual? And, I'll ask again, why are you allowed to contextualize violence in the Old Testament, but Muslims are not? [quote]I've tried to be precise in my description of the use of the term "Allah" among Christians and Muslims. As for the equating to Latin to Arabic, I don't think that the importance of the Latin Language approaches the importance of Classical Arabic for Muslims. Christians have always had multiple important languages, including Latin, Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, Coptic, Ethiopic, to name a few.[/quote] "Allah" means God, the God of Muslims and Christians, the God we both worship. We'll have to disagree, but the non-translation in the media disturbs me. [quote]Just to conclude, here's an excellent introduction for Catholics to Islam: [url="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0965922855/104-5399336-4078340?v=glance&n=283155"]Inside Islam: A Guide for Catholics[/url][/quote] Yes, and Daniel Ali also has a DVD series with Fr. Mitch Pacwa which would be beneficial: [url="http://www.crossroadsinitiative.com/resource_info/56.html"]HERE[/url] [quote]PS: I'm sorry for the many long posts. I must have an unconscious desire to increase my post count.[/quote] The secret is to write less with each post, and just multiply the actual posts. Long posts produce a lot of words, but it's still only one post. :
misereremi Posted May 29, 2006 Posted May 29, 2006 [quote name='Akalyte' post='990166' date='May 25 2006, 09:35 AM'] the whole "muslims are peaceful" thing is a lie and a trap. Another "liberal thing". [/quote] Not sure how it is a liberal "thing"? Tell that to the devout Catholics who engage in interreligous dialogue to promote peace and defend against liberalism. I think that our Holy Father and our late Pope John Paul II show us what interreligious dialogue should be about and we should follow their good example. Cardinal Arinze wrote an excellent booklet on the subject: “meeting other believers”, 1997.
Lounge Daddy Posted May 29, 2006 Posted May 29, 2006 Oh, for St. Pete’s sakes… 1) why is the ACLU ok with Islam in our government schools? ---the ACLU has always been anti-American, and anti-Christian 2) Islam teaches and practices violence, and always has, to achieve conversion … and worldwide conversation to Islam is seen as the only road to peace --- all of this is not acceptable to us as Catholics This should be very simple
misereremi Posted May 29, 2006 Posted May 29, 2006 [quote name='Era Might' post='991971' date='May 28 2006, 11:09 PM'] My point here is that it's not very respectful for us to define Islam for Muslims, and it's also not very respectful to take isolated passages and throw it in their face, because they can return the favor just as easily. Are there Muslims who follow an extreme form of Islam? Of course. Just as there are Christians who follow an extreme (and warped) form of Christianity. Neither group defines their respective religion. And I think it's pretty dishonest to harp on isolated and problematic passages in the Koran, when the book is by and large a treatise on worship and the spiritual life. And again, if we expect the right to contextualize our own Scriptures, we ought to return the same right to Muslims. [/quote] I agree with Era Might's post above-esp, these points. I have asked Muslim sholars to explain the context to me many times. Context is always important. The ayats that were quoted earlier out of context refer to what was revealed around the the time of the battle of Badr, when Mohammed had done hijrah to Medina and the pagans-who had persecuted them without reprisals from Mohammed for 13 years- came from Mecca to destroy their city. The guidance was for self-defence, never to be an aggressor. Muslims can quote just as many ayats from the Qur’an that speak of peaceful dealings with people of the book and other non believers. There are numerous hadiths which show that Mohammed dealt peacefully with people of other faiths. A Muslim scholar gave me this to read from the hadith- a message from Mohammed to the Mount Sinai monks of St. Catherine: "This is a message written by Muhammad ibn Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, far and near, we are behind them. Verily, I defend them by myself, the servants, the helpers, and my followers, because Christians are my citizens; and by Allah! I hold out against anything that displeases them. No compulsion is to be on them. Neither are their judges to be changed from their jobs, nor their monks from their monasteries. No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims' houses. Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God's covenant and disobey His Prophet. Verily, they (Christians) are my allies and have my secure charter against all that they hate. No one is to force them to travel or to oblige them to fight. The Muslims are to fight for them. If a female Christian is married to a Muslim, this is not to take place without her own wish. She is not to be prevented from going to her church to pray. Their churches are to be respected. They are neither to be prevented from repairing them nor the sacredness of their covenants. No one of the nation is to disobey this covenant till the Day of Judgment and the end of the world." There aren't many (any?) "Muslim" countries left in the world today. Muslims will agree that most of them are corrupt and/or extremist, blatantly practicing shirk and all manner of harram acitvity.
Myles Domini Posted May 29, 2006 Posted May 29, 2006 Its true that context is important but again who decides what the context is and how it is applicable in todays context? The fact that certain ayah are connected with historical events has not prevented them from being used to supported armed expansion of Islam subsequent to his death. The actions of the '6 righteous caliphs' who exported Islam out of Arabia and across the Near East and North Africa into Spain are testament to that fact. There are some scholars who take a moderate view, thats true, but in all honesty its sort of fudges the issue. You can interpret the Koran and the ahadith in many different ways, in theory, but in practice Isalm being a judicial religion its down to the Mufti's interpret the correct interpretation based on prior precedent as in any legal ruiling. The history of this tradition of interpretation is filled with blood and nobody can actually argue otherwise convincingly which is where the problem arises. Its all well and good trying to argue a new interpretation of the law but what exactly gives you the right if a judge in a past era has already established a ruiling that has become part of common law? Even today an attitude of Dhimmitude continues to be prevalent as [url="http://www.archons.org/pdf/yalelawstudy.pdf"]This Yale Law study of Turkey's treatment of the Patriarchate of Constantinople illustrates[/url] and with good cause. What legal precedent is there upon which to base a new interpretation? There is some wisdom in saying that Arab nationalism has an influence on this. The inability of the Arab countries to really emerge as nation-states has accentuated the search for identity that began shortly after September 11th 1683 leading to the birth of Wahabism. That being said, the logical place for most Arabs to turn in this circumstance is to the Ummah. Islam fundamentally is an Arabic religion after all, it may have a universal mission but it exalts the Arab language and most things Arabic. If you as an Arab were suffering an identity crisis it would probably would be the first place you looked to reaffirm your manifest destiny and it is quite telling that if there were free and fair elections in places like Egypt the Muslim Brotherhood would win a landslide victory. There is more to the current rage against the West than religious fervour, true enough as I think this article [url="http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/020916fa_fact2"]The Man Behind Bin Laden[/url] illustrates. Still, historically it was by this method that Mohammed united the tribes of Arabia and subsequently that his followers subdued the surrounding Byzantine and Parthian territories until they were defeated in France by Charles Martel in the mid 8th century. Islam was initially used as a means by which to unite the Arab people is it thus such a surprise that in the 21st century Arab potentates are using it towards the same ends? Drawing upon historical examples like the 6 righteous caliphs etc. to legitimise this fact? Where does the Ummah end and the Arab nation actually begin? Until the 21st century did the Arabs even have any concept of nation-state? Its far too simplistic to say that this is nationalism and not religion because by my reading of history the two are almost insperable within Islamdom. The fact that we can still use the term Islamdom whereas we can no longer call what was once Christendom anything other than "the West" is illustrative of the fact that we realise this. Indeed, whenever "the West" does something Islamdom dislikes usually it protests to the Church because the way in which they concieve of "the West" is the way in which they conceive of their their own society wherein the secular and the religious remain intimately wedded.
misereremi Posted May 29, 2006 Posted May 29, 2006 [quote name='Myles Domini' post='992245' date='May 29 2006, 10:39 AM'] Where does the Ummah end and the Arab nation actually begin? Until the 21st century did the Arabs even have any concept of nation-state? Its far too simplistic to say that this is nationalism and not religion because by my reading of history the two are almost insperable within Islamdom. The fact that we can still use the term Islamdom whereas we can no longer call what was once Christendom anything other than "the West" is illustrative of the fact that we realise this. Indeed, whenever "the West" does something Islamdom dislikes usually it protests to the Church because the way in which they concieve of "the West" is the way in which they conceive of their their own society wherein the secular and the religious remain intimately wedded. [/quote] Hi Myles. Honestly, I'm a very thick person, where is Islamdom today? Does it include Southern Philippines, Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi...? When I visit places where the prevalent religion is Islam and the West does something, people blame Bush & Blair, greedy politicians and businessmen or our poor troops, not the Church, except when people use words like Crusade to describe the mission in Iraq. This "us and them" sentiment is doing nobody any favours. It certainly got my head kicked in. Whatever your definition of Islam, as a religion it is growing quickly in the West without force. How should Catholics deal with Muslims here in the West? Maybe the topic of another thread...
Myles Domini Posted May 29, 2006 Posted May 29, 2006 [quote name='misereremi' post='992288' date='May 29 2006, 02:12 PM'] Hi Myles. Honestly, I'm a very thick person, where is Islamdom today? Does it include Southern Philippines, Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi...? When I visit places where the prevalent religion is Islam and the West does something, people blame Bush & Blair, greedy politicians and businessmen or our poor troops, not the Church, except when people use words like Crusade to describe the mission in Iraq. This "us and them" sentiment is doing nobody any favours. It certainly got my head kicked in. Whatever your definition of Islam, as a religion it is growing quickly in the West without force. How should Catholics deal with Muslims here in the West? Maybe the topic of another thread... [/quote] Islamdom is in all those places that you've mentioned. The people you talk to may blame Western politicians indeed but the Church recieves her fair share of ill treatment also one only need to keep up with the bulletins from Zenit, Asia News etc. to see that. The dwindling of the native Middle Eastern Christian communities such as the Melkites and Chaldeans attests to this also. Would it be fair not to acknowledge the suffering of many Christians around the world because it sounds like I'm being antagonistic? When the Mohammed cartoons were released was not Fr Andrea shot in Turkey and a Friar beaten? Was not a church stoned in Lebanon? It is not a figment of my imagination that Palestinian Christians, for instance, have been oft treated as a 5th column and often suffered harsh treatment by both the Druze and the Palestinian Arab Muslim community. The stastistics of their exodus West is testament to that fact. I dont dislike Muslims, I dont dislike anyone, you cant bring the love of Jesus Christ to someone you dont love. What I do dislike is misrepresentation of the facts, hence the reason for my post. Nothing in my post is false and everything I said was either a lawful statement or a lawful question. The Yale Law study is not a fabrication, Turkey really has done all the things it says. It is not a lie to say that with Islam Mohammed united the Arabs and that Muslim leaders thoroughout history have utilised it in the same manner. It is not a lie to say the division of church and state is a Western innovation that has never really been swallowed by the Muslim world and was effectively forced upon it by the destruction of the Ottoman state. Nor is it a lie to say that the expansion of Islam into Spain across the Middle East, North Africa and Asia minor was by military force. Again, how is it inaccurate to say that the Mufti's make their ruilings based upon established legal precedent and to ask what legal theory can one provide for novel interpretation accordingly? Lastly, there needn't be a thread devoted to Islam and Catholicism. Catholics should treat Muslims the same way they should treat all non-Catholics. A) Pray for their conversion; B) Be ready to give answer to any questions they may have about the faith in order to encourage conversion and C) Spread the gospel through word and deed.
misereremi Posted May 29, 2006 Posted May 29, 2006 ^^True, Myles. Btw I never said anything you said was a lie (?) and I'm sorry you think I did. No one can deny the killing and suffering of Christians, especially not me. My heart always goes out to my fam there. But it's clear to me that no matter how people describe Islam, it is spreading here without coersion and many Muslims- be they deluded or devout- don't see their faith as condoning violence and don't know that the Ummah is not simply people who follow the deen. I'm finding it's a real mission trying to bring the gospel in word and deed to these converts, especially with the secular govt revelling in suppressing and belittling Christianity, and even saying they rep Christians, and Christians saying we are at war against these heretics, and others watering down the faith not knowing that it's orthodoxy that these people are seeking etc. etc. Vent over, I'm sorry people San Ramon Nonnatus ora pro nobis (the suggestion of the new topic was bc I was going off-topic from the orginal topic about schools, apologies, nvrmind. )
Mateo el Feo Posted May 29, 2006 Posted May 29, 2006 (edited) Myles, Great posts. The following question hits the center of this discussion:[quote name='Myles Domini' post='992313' date='May 29 2006, 10:20 AM']Would it be fair not to acknowledge the suffering of many Christians around the world because it sounds like I'm being antagonistic?[/quote]Everyone should consider this question. I hope we've moved the discussion beyond the idea that we're fighting against a small band of "false Muslims" and confront the fact that the non-Muslim persecution in the Muslim world is commited by a variety of religious and nominally secular governments, not to mention the quasi-governmental "religious police" in some countries and other vigilantes who act with the complicit approval of the government. There is a diversity of thought within Islamic jurisprudence. Unfortunately, the institutional persecution of non-Muslims is one of the things that they seem to agree on. As a consequence of this fact, it seems apparent that non-Muslims don't really want Muslims to adopt an existing "moderate Islam." Instead, they want Muslims to drop 1400 years of well-established Islamic Law. Islam has an institutional history which demands that Muslims (as individuals or through government) treat all non-Muslims as second class citizens. Non-Muslim rights are all subject to the bounds of Sharia ([url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairo_Declaration_on_Human_Rights_in_Islam"]link[/url]). And while 20th century Middle Eastern secular movements have advanced the cause of non-Muslim rights, those same secular movements are increasingly being seen as a failed experiment whose cure is a return to "true" Islam. In posts above, there have been discussion of Osama bin Laden and Arab Nationalism. If anyone questions that these are red herrings, I would have no problem isolating my citations of non-Muslim persecution to non-Arabs who have nothing to do with Al Qaeda. Unfortunately, the news gives us more evidence each day of human rights abuses by Muslim faithful. [b]The Catholic Church's Response to Islam[/b] Above, someone cited Pope John Paul II's words of reconciliation toward Islam. While I am for peaceful co-existence, my opinion is that JPII's words may have caused negative side effects that were not anticipated. For example: some seem to have interpreted these statements as a modern form of indifferentialism (i.e. one religion is as good as another). Pope John Paul II's conciliatory tone led one of the Muslim posters to believe that the Pope had secretly converted to Islam! I suspect that he wasn't the only person to believe this conspiracy theory. [url="http://www.amirbutler.com/archives/2002/11/15/12"]See this link for a discussion of Muslim Conspiracy theories written by a Muslim.[/url] The Vatican--along with bishops around the world--are calling on Muslims to respect Christians and other non-Muslims, just as the West respects the freedom of Muslims in its midst. Today, the Vatican is realizing more and more that it cannot remain silent when non-Muslim abuse occurs, even if Muslims are "offended" by us bringing up these ugly facts. Edited May 29, 2006 by Mateo el Feo
Myles Domini Posted May 29, 2006 Posted May 29, 2006 [quote name='misereremi' post='992364' date='May 29 2006, 05:37 PM'] ^^True, Myles. Btw I never said anything you said was a lie (?) and I'm sorry you think I did. No one can deny the killing and suffering of Christians, especially not me. My heart always goes out to my fam there. But it's clear to me that no matter how people describe Islam, it is spreading here without coersion and many Muslims- be they deluded or devout- don't see their faith as condoning violence and don't know that the Ummah is not simply people who follow the deen. I'm finding it's a real mission trying to bring the gospel in word and deed to these converts, especially with the secular govt revelling in suppressing and belittling Christianity, and even saying they rep Christians, and Christians saying we are at war against these heretics, and others watering down the faith not knowing that it's orthodoxy that these people are seeking etc. etc. Vent over, I'm sorry people San Ramon Nonnatus ora pro nobis (the suggestion of the new topic was bc I was going off-topic from the orginal topic about schools, apologies, nvrmind. ) [/quote] I apologise if you felt I was accusing you. It was not my intention to do so, simply that I interpreted your comment about having a "them and us" mentality as implying that my comments were being unduly aggressive and adversarial towards Muslims. I'm well aware that Islam in the West is spreading without violence. I did not make any reference to the contemporary Western situation because I did not believe it was strictly relevant to the points being addressed when I entered this debate. My attitude towards them as towards all people is the same though, as previously stated, bring them the love of God. Come prepared with the Catechetical teaching of the Church and be willing to enter into dialogue. Be able to challenge the historical veracity of Surah 61; be able to illustrate that Surah 6's comments about God needing to have a consort to have a Son are only true in a material sense--a sense Christianity rejects; be able to identify the error of Muslims in using the so-called 'gospel of Barnabas' which if true nullifies the Koran since it claims Jesus is not the Messiah a claim the Koran wants to make etc.etc. Know your own faith, know the questions that will arise and be ready to give answer to them. Essentially debating with Muslims isnt so different from arguing against Jehovah Witnesses' or Mormons. Proving we didnt change the Bible, giving evidence that Jesus was divine yadda yadda yadda. If you're able to carry a healthy apologetics on one front you should be able to do it on basically any front. The problem of the Church is the lack of theologian bishops actually willing to enter into controversy. Did Athanasius ignore the challenge from the pagans and Arians? Did the Cappodacians simply sit still before Apollinarius, Eunomius and co? Did Ambrose quietly allow Auxentius to cease his basilica? Did Augustine meekly hold his tongue before the Manichees, the Platonists, the Homoions and the Pelagians? Having isolated apologists carrying on the struggle is good but they need a platform wherein their message can be widely broadcast. Only the episcopate really has that capacity and indeed only they have the right by episcopal orders. Essential (in the philosophical sense of what it means to be by nature something) to the Bishop's vocation is that he [b]preach[/b] and propagate the faith. The inability to do this, though understandable, is damaging. After all if the shepherds do not tend the sheep who will?
Guest maryhasopenarms Posted May 30, 2006 Posted May 30, 2006 the Islamic and the Christians praise the same God.
musturde Posted May 30, 2006 Posted May 30, 2006 [quote name='Myles Domini' post='992313' date='May 29 2006, 09:20 AM'] Islamdom is in all those places that you've mentioned.[/quote] Did you come up with this word yourself? lol [quote] The people you talk to may blame Western politicians indeed but the Church recieves her fair share of ill treatment also one only need to keep up with the bulletins from Zenit, Asia News etc. to see that. The dwindling of the native Middle Eastern Christian communities such as the Melkites and Chaldeans attests to this also. Would it be fair not to acknowledge the suffering of many Christians around the world because it sounds like I'm being antagonistic? When the Mohammed cartoons were released was not Fr Andrea shot in Turkey and a Friar beaten? Was not a church stoned in Lebanon? It is not a figment of my imagination that Palestinian Christians, for instance, have been oft treated as a 5th column and often suffered harsh treatment by both the Druze and the Palestinian Arab Muslim community. The stastistics of their exodus West is testament to that fact. [/quote] Its true that a priest and a friar were killed and injured when the cartoon was out. However, this was done by unneducated idiots who don't know the truth about Islam. What is the truth about Islam? Who is to decide it? Well just as the Bible, true Islam can be seen by how the Muslim Scholars see it. The Muslim scholars in N. America came together and agreed that terrorism is a Haram. Of course this is obvious, however they came together and anounced it so that people wouldn't think that everyone in the religion was a bloodsucking Bin Laden worshipper. A Church was stoned in Lebanon by the closed minded Muslims. I believe this was already discussed. The true Muslims in Lebanon went against this act. There was a group of Idiots who dreamed to be in Achrafieh where all the crimes against Christians were happening. They finally had a reason. These thugs aren't real Muslims and the Islamic community in Lebanon was hoping that the Christians knew that they didn't agree with it and that they were not part of this stupid riot. Muslims still boycotted Danish goods in Lebanon (although I still don't agree with the idea) but for the most part didn't participate in such acts. If that was the case, another Civil War would have errupted. Also, the Druze Community is a different story. The Druze aren't Muslim. [quote]Again, how is it inaccurate to say that the Mufti's make their ruilings based upon established legal precedent and to ask what legal theory can one provide for novel interpretation accordingly? [/quote] This isn't everywhere. [quote] Lastly, there needn't be a thread devoted to Islam and Catholicism. Catholics should treat Muslims the same way they should treat all non-Catholics. A) Pray for their conversion; B) Be ready to give answer to any questions they may have about the faith in order to encourage conversion and C) Spread the gospel through word and deed. [/quote] Better to learn more about a religion if you seek to convert the followers of it. I think it's a nice thread.
musturde Posted May 30, 2006 Posted May 30, 2006 [quote]The media is simply respecting the Muslim practice of not translating the term. If you speak English with them, Christian Arabs will tell you that they worship God, and not "Allah." If you speak English with a Muslim, they will speak of Allah. As an aside, I have heard that the historical practice of Christian Arabs calling the God of the Bible "Allah" came about with a bit of arm-twisting from their Muslim rulers. I think that explanation has some merit. In fact, I found that Muslims try their best to pepper their discussions with Arabic terms.[/quote] I don't know where you're getting your information from. Perhaps the history is true. Whatever the history is, the fact remains, Christian Arabs use Allah during worship and say the same phrases Muslims do "allah Mahuk" (God Be With You), "Enshallah" (Ojala in espanol), which means "If God Wills", and the casual "Ya Allah!", which translates, "Oh God". Most Christians I know say that Allah is the same God (without Jesus and the Holy Spirit). Unless you are talking to Christians who hate Muslims so much they refuse to admit they worship the same God lol.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now