Pope's criticism of Islam

T-1111111111111

I myself (if I were in such a position) would never call "a day of anger". This practise is not in the Sunnah (at least not that I know of) - it is not the Prophet's Way (by my knowledge).

Why is it that Muslims feel insulted? Maybe just because Christians (in general) nowadays do not have the same level of respect for their own faith as Muslims. And you know you can't deny that.

Take a look again at that thread where Christians were making a laugh of Jesus. Disgusting. See Wibbs, no Muslim would ever do that.

So to understand this, you should slightly change the position of your seat and move it from south-east to Vatican and ask them why is it that they don't truly respect their own faith? I'm not sure if they would give you an honest answer, but you can go ahead and try.

Rev Hellfire

T-1111111111111 wrote:

Take a look again at that thread where Christians were making a laugh of Jesus. Disgusting. See Wibbs, no Muslim would ever do that.

Perhaps its the fact that Christians are secure in their faith and thus can approach it in a more familiar manner. You must remember that the god of Christianity is a god of compassion and not one that is approached in fear. Such laughter is possible because theirs is personal relationship.
Respect is asked for but not demanded by god. That seems to me a key difference in the christian relationship.

T-1111111111111

Rev Hellfire wrote:

Perhaps its the fact that Christians are secure in their faith and thus can approach it in a more familiar manner. You must remember that the god of Christianity is a god of compassion and not one that is approached in fear. Such laughter is possible because theirs is personal relationship.
Respect is asked for but not demanded by god. That seems to me a key difference in the christian relationship.

It is (also due to the) fact thay Christians (in my opinion) are thinking only about Paradise and God's Mercy, however they maybe keep forgetting that He also is The Punisher and He certainly will throw people (also) in Hell, and to some He will grant Paradise.

So, obviously some Christians do not take His warnings seriously, although they should. Further, there is a mess up (read: misunderstanding, a deliberate or non-deliberate one) when talking about how to get salvation. Some take easy position (for themselves) and try to explain that it is enuff to accept Jesus as your saviour, however even he cannot save himself, peace be upon him, cos he was only a prophet and certainly not divine. It is God and only God who can give you Mercy (for the afterlife), humans certainly cannot do that. Also, all the mercy in this life (humans to humans, humans to animals, etc.) is God's Mercy as well. He is the Initiator of this too.

PS Where did you get that "Respect is asked for but not demanded by god."?
In the Bible, in the creed documents, from the church fathers?

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote:

I know you do, but that's beside the point.

I'm trying to point out that I don't support Islam any more than I support Catholicism. Often people think this issue is about picking sides. As an atheists I think I can view the issues from the outside looking in.

wolfsbane wrote:

Agreed. (second one)

So would you denounce the position of the Pope as not being God's representative on Earth and denounce previous Pope's as spreading or actually being evil? I don't actually know if you are Catholic or not, so I don't know would this conflict with your personal beliefs. But even if you are, imagine you were a Catholic and some said that. Would you be insulted?

wolfsbane wrote:

If that is the basis of their objection, fine. But is it? That's what I'm trying to find out. Even you go on to say it is more than the hypocrisy:

It is the hypocrisy and the arrogance and the fact that this is a strained time between Muslim and Christian relations and we don't need people with opinions like the Pope.

wolfsbane wrote:

So it is the hypocrisy AND the Pope saying that promoting Islam by the sword was evil.

That is the hypocrisy. The Pope is in no position to lecture the world about the evil of Islam. Christians shouldn't listen to him and Muslims certainly aren't going to. The Pope's views to Islam are dangerous and provokative at the moment. While the Pope as a person has the right to believe anything he wishes, I don't think it is helpful that the Catholic chuch is giving him a platform for his ultraconservative platform, with relation to Islam and a host of other issues where he is just as blunt and silly.

wolfsbane wrote:

I can understand their reasoning completely, if that is what they say. I hold the actions mandated by God in the Old Testament were perfectly just.

Evil is a relative term. You believe that the killing, raping and slaughter in the Old Testement Bible was 'just' because it was the wishes of God and his followers. Therefore it isn't evil. I, being an atheist would take a very different view.

Muslims take a similar line for the actions of Mohammad.

wolfsbane wrote:

My difficulty comes from so many Muslim spokemen claiming Islam is a religion of peace; a religion that disapproves of violence.

Do you not claim the same about Christianity?

How does that tally with the descriptions of massive violence and destruction in the Bible, or with the history of mass violence and destruction carried out by the Chrisitian churches under the leadership of the Pope in the last 2000 years?

wolfsbane wrote:

So I'm asking them what is their objection to the Pope's speech: is it that he wrongly accused Muhammad of using violence to promote Islam, or is it that he catagorized that as evil?

The Pope believes that Islam is fundamentally incompatable with peaceful democracy. We know this from leaked descriptions of private meetings he has had over the issue of Islamic fundamentalism as well as the fact that to the press he has refused to call Islam a religon of peace because of this, staying only that he would pray for Muslims to move towards the better elements in the religion.

So it is clear that the Pope sees Islam as a dead end. The Muslim world know this, they aren't stupid, they read the newspapers just like everyone else.

So you have to view these comments in the wider scheme of current Christian Islamic relations. Now you can believe he isn't, but I believe (as do a lot of people in the Muslim world) that the use of Islam in the opening passages of this speach was a bit of a one up manship with Islam. The Pope is attempting to point out, in various ways, his fundamental objection to Islam.

These objections seem to be similar to what a lot in the west feel about Islam, that violence in Islam is not simply an aspect of the militant fundamentalist groups but that it is at its core, that it is a fundamental aspect of the religion. And the Pope, just as many in the west including people on Boards.ie, use the spread of the religion by military campaigns in its early life as evidence of this fact.

I've had converstations on Boards.ie where people have done the "my religion is better than theirs" routen that the Pope seems to be doing now. They claim that Jesus was a man of peace, where as Mohammad was a man of war. That Jesus told everyone to turn away from violence, yet Mohammad through the Qu'aran told people to embrase it.

I find these arguments particularly distastleful because obviously there are large areas of the Christian religion that seem to justify violence. 2000 years of violence in Europe is evidence of that.

So I see the Popes comments in a wider sense, as sense of the scrambling of the Christian religions to distance themselves from their violent history just so they can condemn Islam for having violence as a fundamental core of the religion.

wolfsbane wrote:

You seem to agree with both of the Pope's assertions, that Muhammad did use violence to promote Islam, and that that was evil. Your only objection then is the hypocrisy bit?

My objection is that Muslims should be no more condemned for the violent past of their religion than Christians should be.

Do you actually understand what it means when the Pope basically says Islam is a religion founded in irrational violence? This isn't just some idiel off hand remark by a right wing Christian in America. This is the Pope. His views towards Islam influence millions of Christian's views towards Islam.

Rev Hellfire

T-1111111111111 wrote:

It is (also due to the) fact thay Christians (in my opinion) are thinking only about Paradise and God's Mercy, however they maybe keep forgetting that He also is The Punisher and He certainly will throw people (also) in Hell, and to some He will grant Paradise.

While there is a large thread on the nature of hell and opinions vary on the subject, I’ll deal with my understanding of that particular existence.
There is a fundamental difference here between say how the catholic church understands hell and the idea you put forward (which I’m assume is representative of the Islamic view of damnation). To put it quite simply god does not condemn anyone (even the fallen angels) to hell, they do that to themselves.
But here’s the rub, anyone who wishes to may come to god, even those confined to hell. For example Satan simply needs to acknowledge his fall was due to pride, but it is this that confines him. To leave hell you need merely need to acknowledge your error and attain grace.

Zombrex

MeditationMom wrote:

No question the hypocrisy is objectionable, but let's be very clear about the fact that it was the Christian Church that used violence to promote Christianity and NOT Jesus himself.

Maybe you should read the Old Testement once in a while, a book that Jesus himself said was the correct word of God (prefect I think was the term, but I might be wrong about that)

How many of Gods messangers in the Old Testement either killed or commited shocking crimes against others who were not God's people?

How many times did God act for hate or revenge?

As I explained to Wolfsbane, "evil" is a relative term. In my opinion the Old Testement is full of immoral and "evil" acts. Yet Jews Christians and Muslims worship it equally as the word and will of God.

As Sam Harris, a leading atheist writers, says

There is no text more barbaric than the Old Testament of the Bible--books like Deuteronomy and Leviticus and Exodus. The Quran pales in comparison.

The only conclusion an outsider can draw from that is that your God is a evil and immoral.

Some how I think the Christians here will disagree

Schuhart

Wicknight wrote:

The only conclusion an outsider can draw from that is that your God is a evil and immoral.

Some how I think the Christians here will disagree

I know your main point is simply to get Christians to see the equivalents that can be draw between their faith and others. However, I do feel this view can be taken to an unsupportable extreme.

From an atheist perspective, the foundations of all religions are equally invalid. That’s not the same as saying that all religions are equally crap, although that is a possible conclusion. Some of us do have a feeling that Islam as a doctrine has flaws that make for potential problems for the rest of us. Those problems are not without precedent in our experience of Christianity. But I think we should recognise some of the contrasts as well as the similarities that exist between the two religions.

Islam has a hang up about how the children will be brought up in an inter-faith marriage. So does Catholicism, as expressed in the Ne Temere decree issued in 1907.

The intellectual freedom that the Pope lauds in his address, and the sceptically scrutiny that religious doctrine is subject to, is not particularly a Christian invention. It’s more something they have to accept because we don’t need to ask his permission. The Catholic Church in Ireland was quite happy with the idea of censorship to protect the faithful from nasty old free thought.

Plenty more could be said to lambaste Catholicism in particular and Christianity in general. But there are contrasts with Islam that don’t seem cosmetic. Just taking two points that have cropped up on the thread.

If the Pope has said that Islam was born in violence, he’s just right. That does contrast with the origins of Christianity. The early history of Islam does suggest it was a creation of Mohammed aimed at supporting his personal career. The same charge can be levied at the people who took over Christianity – but not at the original revelation.

Some fundamentalist Christians put great store in the old testament and literal interpretation, to the extent of aging the world in thousands of years. Most regard it as an irrelevance, so the comparison to the Quran is not an equivalence. The ‘Jesus said he was fulfilling the old laws’ argument is also questionable. As I understand it, the old testament started to be relegated to an annex once Gentiles started converting as it was decided they didn’t need to be circumcised.

Mainstream Christianity is comfortable with the idea that scripture is not saying blessed are the cheesemakers, but rather means all manufacturers of dairy products. Notice the Pope’s speech acknowledges that Greek ideas would have crept into the new testament. Contrast that with the mainstream Islamic notion that the Quran is the exact word of God with no error or omission. While T-111111111111 views are almost a parody of the attitude that underpins this literal view of scripture, it’s useful to have that unreasoning view peppering the thread to put a face on where that takes you.

The conclusion I find myself coming to is Islam as a doctrine today either has about two hundred years of catching up to do with Christianity, or it’s a dead end.

ISAW

T-1111111111111 wrote:

It is (also due to the) fact thay Christians (in my opinion) are thinking only about Paradise and God's Mercy, however they maybe keep forgetting that He also is The Punisher and He certainly will throw people (also) in Hell, and to some He will grant Paradise.

You sound like a fundamentalist christian now

Excuse me but you stated that Pope Benedict in his address to Ravensberg University LIED didnt you? I expect you know a lie is when you know something to be true and you say it isnt true? Do you apply a different standard of reason then christians? Well since you clsimed the pope lied I suppose you will show the evidence for where he actually lied? If you cant supply the evidence of the lie then I expect you would not bear false witness and will withdraw the remark. Will you?

Please indicate the "lie" you claim the Pope made in Gremany.

T-1111111111111

Schuhart wrote:

Mainstream Christianity is comfortable with the idea that scripture is not saying blessed are the cheesemakers, but rather means all manufacturers of dairy products. Notice the Pope’s speech acknowledges that Greek ideas would have crept into the new testament. Contrast that with the mainstream Islamic notion that the Quran is the exact word of God with no error or omission. While T-111111111111 views are almost a parody of the attitude that underpins this literal view of scripture, it’s useful to have that unreasoning view peppering the thread to put a face on where that takes you.

The conclusion I find myself coming to is Islam as a doctrine today either has about two hundred years of catching up to do with Christianity, or it’s a dead end.

Ur personal view/conclusion shows how ignorant (regarding Islam) u actually are. Some people will not receive the Light until Almighty shows them the Light. They will remain in Darkness until Almighty wills them to remain in there. My conclusion would be that u are one of them, however I'm certainly not excluding the chance that Almighty takes u out of this Darkness.

T-1111111111111

ISAW wrote:

You sound like a fundamentalist christian now

Excuse me but you stated that Pope Benedict in his address to Ravensberg University LIED didnt you? I expect you know a lie is when you know something to be true and you say it isnt true? Do you apply a different standard of reason then christians? Well since you clsimed the pope lied I suppose you will show the evidence for where he actually lied? If you cant supply the evidence of the lie then I expect you would not bear false witness and will withdraw the remark. Will you?

Please indicate the "lie" you claim the Pope made in Gremany.

You know exactly what I meant by Pope's lies. But let me 1stly repeat that the Pope did lie. He supported a nasty lie. Therefore he also is guilty of what he said and supported and will have to pay the price.

If somebody's is stealing while the other is watching and guarding the crime area until the 1st guy is finished - they are both guilty. Maybe not equally, but they both are guilty.

So, take it as you want - but the Pope did lie by supporting an ugly lie. Simple as that. Now if you wana play dictionary or synonym games I advise you to do it with urself cos I don't have time for that.

fly_agaric

T-1111111111111 wrote:

Some people will not receive the Light until Almighty shows them the Light. They will remain in Darkness until Almighty wills them to remain in there.

That's a strange idea - God deciding to show people "the light" - or not, on a whim. I thought alot of it was supposed to up to us? Free will rather than God's Pawns.

T-1111111111111 wrote:

My conclusion would be that u are one of them, however I'm certainly not excluding the chance that Almighty takes u out of this Darkness.

Most gracious of you!

T-1111111111111 wrote:

But let me 1stly repeat that the Pope did lie. He supported a nasty lie. Therefore he also is guilty of what he said and supported and will have to pay the price.

What price would that be and who will be making him pay it?
"God" or one of his right hands with a direct-line like you?

Zombrex

Schuhart wrote:

If the Pope has said that Islam was born in violence, he’s just right. That does contrast with the origins of Christianity.

Not really.

As the church established itself in the 2nd and 3rd centuries violence and persecution were often used against heretics, even against other Christians who would not submit to the emerging power systems.

The idea that Christianity spread peacefully through the Western and Eastern Empires, over coming percecution from the Emperors, until finally converting everyone through the message of peace of God is largely a myth.

Once the early church had the ability to spread through violence it did spread through violence, and it has been going in that vain ever since.

So really you are left with a comparision of Jesus and Mohammad. Most people in the west generally believe that Jesus taught love and peace and Mohammad taugh violence and submission. But comparisions are a little pointless since we actually don't know what Jesus taught. We only know what his followers in the early church say he taught. I would make little sense for them to say he taught of spreading his message through force since the early christians were in no position to spread anything through force. We know that the early Christians adapted their religion to blend in with the established authority, moving holidays and celebrations around to fit in with the pagan holidays so they could be celebrated without attracting attention for example. The early Christians wanted to simply survive, so they took great effort to blend in. Preaching violence convertion would have been very damaging to that aim.

I'm not saying Jesus did preach conversion through force. As many here know I'm not even sure Jesus actually existed, let alone what he preached. Some of the passages that emerged from the early Christian period of adaption do hint though that everything was not all love and respect -

28 I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. 29 But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin Mark: 3

14If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town.15I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town. Matt: 10

Schuhart wrote:

The early history of Islam does suggest it was a creation of Mohammed aimed at supporting his personal career. The same charge can be levied at the people who took over Christianity – but not at the original revelation.

I'm not quite sure how.

I supposed you have to be a Christian to believe that. To an atheist Jesus was just someone who started a personal cult around himself claiming to the be the Messiah. That happens quite a lot around the world each year, and normally for the same reason.

Schuhart wrote:

Some fundamentalist Christians put great store in the old testament and literal interpretation, to the extent of aging the world in thousands of years. Most regard it as an irrelevance, so the comparison to the Quran is not an equivalence.

Well it is only really the fudamentalist Muslims who put "great store" in the objectional passanges of Quran. Most Muslims, at least in the west, don't believe in things like stonings.

I suppose it is how you define fundamentalist. Depending on who you talk to the number of Americans who believe in a literal interpretation of the Old Testament goes from 10% to a whooping 63% (that is over 100 million). The Christian Right have a very powerful say in American politics.

Compare that with say British Muslims (who only make up 2.7% of the British population) where 40% want Shaira law imposed in civil desputes between other Muslims.

If one believed these figures (which I admit are all over the place) it seems more Christians want the Old Testament taking seriously than Muslims want the Quran taken seriously.

You can see how it is easy for the image of a religion to shift dramatically with only a few statistical reports.

Schuhart wrote:

Contrast that with the mainstream Islamic notion that the Quran is the exact word of God with no error or omission.

It is the mainstream Christian notion that the Bible is the exact word of God (see statistics above), particularly the Old Testament. Jesus even says so.

You are confusing too things here. One the actual teaching of the religion and two how seriously some of its followers take that teaching.

The vast majority of Muslims, just like Christians, don't follow the Quran or the Bible to the letter, despite the fact that they really should according to the religion. This is a policy that you only find in the more fundamentalist streams in both religions. The problem is the Christian fundamentalist stream is a HECK OF A LOT BIGGER in the West than the Muslim one.

Yet for some reason, most likely the emphasiss that has been put on terrorism in the last decade, most Christians in the west are far more worried about fundamentalists muslims than fundamentalist christians.

Its funny that now, after about 5 years of countless programs and articles about Islamic fundamentalism you are starting to get a steady flow of programs and reports about Christian fundamentalism on the rise in Europe and particularly America. Its as if while we were all over having a good look at Islamic fundamentalism someone said "umm, hold on a minute, this looks very similar to what these guys have been doing in Alabama for the last 15 years.

Schuhart wrote:

The conclusion I find myself coming to is Islam as a doctrine today either has about two hundred years of catching up to do with Christianity, or it’s a dead end.

The reason we don't fear Christianity in the West as much as we once did is not because the religion has changed. Christianity hasn't matured in the last 200 years. It hasn't matured much in the last 1500 years. Western society has matured around it and the church has been forced to keep up or lose support altogether, just as the early Christian church had to adapt its dogma and rituals to fit the pagan population of the accient Roman empires.

These days people have either completely left the religion or abondoned large parts of it that they no longer accept.

This also happened throughout the Muslim world, though most people don't realise it. Modern Turkey was founded as a secular state. Iran had a very popular communist part which Mosaddeq used for support in 1953. Because large parts of the Middle East were under western control for periods after the first world war all the intellectual secular humanist views filtered through to the Middle East as they did to everywhere. But instability in the region lead to a huge rise in popular support for Muslim fundamentalism around the 60s on wards.

It is an interesting fact that fundamentalist revolt will take the form of the opposite of what is precieved to be wrong or oppressing the people, even if that is just as negative. Communism preached atheism because of the abuses of the Christian churches throughout Europe. Christian fundamentalism is rising in America in responce to the secular nature of American laws. And Islamic fundamentalism rose in the Middle East in response to Christian alien influences in the region.

Instead of your argument I would say that the Middle East is actually 50 years AHEAD of the West in terms of the rise of fundamentalism. Islamic fundamentalism has been rising in the Middle East since the 1950s, due to a variety of reasons mostly instability in the region. In the West Christian fundamentalism has only been rising for the last 20 years, and is only now starting to take hold in certain places (it may not be as obvious as say Iran or Palestine, but Bush is a Christian fundamentalist elected by Christian fundamentalists).

I would not be surpised that if things continue as they are, parts of America begin in 25 years resemble parts of Iran today. There is certainly nothing in the Christian religious texts to stop that happening.

Wibbs

Schuhart wrote:

I know your main point is simply to get Christians to see the equivalents that can be draw between their faith and others. However, I do feel this view can be taken to an unsupportable extreme.

I'd agree with this. As an agnostic type myself with no particular slant towards either Islam or Christianity, it is clear that many equivalences can be drawn. Indeed having grown up in a predominantly catholic country with all that entails, interest in the ideas of other faiths always held some pull for me. My agnosticism is directly due to a questioning and rejection of much of Catholic doctrine. My reading of the various Islamic texts(among others) over a period of time (long before the current apparent "them and us" guff)found all too often the same dubious passages sprinkled in with the "touchy feely" parts. In fact some of it distrubed me in it's directness. I felt it difficult to reject most of the tenets of one without applying the same criteria to others, specifically Islam. Too many do go down the road of "my God's better than yours" on both sides. Both sides have blood on their hands and no mistake, but the idea of criticising one while affording the other undue special treatment is anathema for me.

If the Pope has said that Islam was born in violence, he’s just right. That does contrast with the origins of Christianity. The early history of Islam does suggest it was a creation of Mohammed aimed at supporting his personal career.

Just like Constantine and later christian rulers used the same excuses to rustle up an empire.

The same charge can be levied at the people who took over Christianity – but not at the original revelation

Which handily leaves the Christians with a very good get out clause to renounce violence and decry the mistakes of their predessors if they should choose to. The Jesus quote "My kingdom is not of this earth" allows for secular government in much the same way. It makes for a religion that settles well enough into a modern secular democracy(with some naysayers naturally). This is in contrast with Islam that cannot easily make the same claims.

Notice the Pope’s speech acknowledges that Greek ideas would have crept into the new testament. Contrast that with the mainstream Islamic notion that the Quran is the exact word of God with no error or omission.

Big diff and very relevant.

While T-111111111111 views are almost a parody of the attitude that underpins this literal view of scripture, it’s useful to have that unreasoning view peppering the thread to put a face on where that takes you.

Exactly and the aggressive tone to some of the rebuttals makes for worrying reading.

The conclusion I find myself coming to is Islam as a doctrine today either has about two hundred years of catching up to do with Christianity, or it’s a dead end.

Funny enough in many ways Islam helped Christainity to adapt. When Islamic Europe was at it's height it was by far the better system in place at the time. It was far more scientific and pluralist by comparison and would have been the choice to live in(in terms of the time at least). Faced with that and other things Europe and Christianity adapted slowly. Nowadays the rigidity has swapped sides in many ways. What made Islam attractive then has been superceeded in more ways than not. As a faith it must adapt or die like any organism faced with an adapting environment. Christianity largely managed it. Will Islam is the question.

T-1111111111111 wrote:

Ur personal view/conclusion shows how ignorant (regarding Islam) u actually are.

Unlike your good self I don't know the scope of Schuhart's "ignorance", but it seems to me he is more informed about various religious views and their history than you may be or indeed want to be.

My conclusion would be that u are one of them, however I'm certainly not excluding the chance that Almighty takes u out of this Darkness.

I take it that the line "judge not lest you be judged" doesn't figure high in your quote list.

You know exactly what I meant by Pope's lies. But let me 1stly repeat that the Pope did lie. He supported a nasty lie. Therefore he also is guilty of what he said and supported and will have to pay the price.

Again with the aggressive tone implicit in your reply. BTW Is that "price" in this world or the next?

So, take it as you want - but the Pope did lie by supporting an ugly lie. Simple as that.

No discussion then? No support of the contrary view? It's beginning to look like your position is more and more indefenceable, especially with the veiled threats.

Now if you wana play dictionary or synonym games I advise you to do it with urself cos I don't have time for that.

Or time for anything but threateningly ignoring everything that upsets your world view. Your take on your faith does no favours for it.

Wicknight wrote:

Not really.

I think the point is that the originator of the faith didn't and indeed suffered from violence rather than meted it out(If you take the stories as accurate of course).

Some of the passages that emerged from the early Christian period of adaption do hint though that everything was not all love and respect -

Agreed, but neither did he order the deaths of those who disagreed with him and his new faith. There is a difference.

To an atheist Jesus was just someone who started a personal cult around himself claiming to the be the Messiah. That happens quite a lot around the world each year, and normally for the same reason.

Agreed again. The only difference is that Mohammed personally started as he meant to go on. He was more successful militarily. It took the romans to exercise the same force behind Christianity. Again the difference is that Christianity can be "made" a more meek faith by comparison as following exactly the originator of the faith would preclude taking up arms even in self defense. The same can't be said for Islam in it's current form. the framework is more rigid.

"umm, hold on a minute, this looks very similar to what these guys have been doing in Alabama for the last 15 years.

I'm with you here. They need watching just as much.

Schuhart

T-1111111111111 wrote:

I'm certainly not excluding the chance that Almighty takes u out of this Darkness.

I’ve read your message and I’m converted. Unfortunately, I seem to be converted to Roman Catholicism. Take it away, Benedict.

The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality. Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazm went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practise idolatry.

fly_agaric

Wicknight wrote:

We know that the early Christians adapted their religion to blend in with the established authority, moving holidays and celebrations around to fit in with the pagan holidays so they could be celebrated without attracting attention for example.

Really? I thought that was some my God is bigger stuff from Christianity. Laying claim to the celebrations of the Pagan Gods.

That and appealing to new converts perhaps (you can still enjoy your old holidays and have a knees-up but dedicate them to Jesus and God now instead of the old Gods).

Do I have this all wrong?

Wicknight wrote:

Some of the passages that emerged from the early Christian period of adaption do hint though that everything was not all love and respect -

28 I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them. 29 But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin Mark: 3

14If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town.15I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town. Matt: 10

It is vengeful, but those quotes are saying God himself will pay them back in spades (at the end-days?) - not calling for vengence to be exacted by God's followers in the here-and-now.
I suppose it is not much of a leap for true-believers who are ever so ready to do his will right now (which they know better than anyone).

Wicknight wrote:

The problem is the Christian fundamentalist stream is a HECK OF A LOT BIGGER in the West than the Muslim one.

The only "Western" country where Christian Fundies are really strong is the US. Which is obviously bad because the US is very powerful. Is that the reason why you say "a heck of alot bigger"?
They are a joke everywhere apart from the US.
We all live in one world and if you are talking of states involved or numbers of people the Christian Fundie element is far smaller than the Muslim Fundie one isn't it?

Wicknight wrote:

Yet for some reason, most likely the emphasiss that has been put on terrorism in the last decade, most Christians in the west are far more worried about fundamentalists muslims than fundamentalist christians.

The fundamentalist Christians have not carried out as much violence (yet??) or made so many threats (yet??) have they? You are not going to say that Iraq and Afghanistan are Christian Fundamentalist wars are you?
Although I suppose there is plenty of time for the Christian fundies to up the violence and threat level against those who oppose them if they are 50 years behind the Islamic ones in their grand program.

Wicknight wrote:

Modern Turkey was founded as a secular state.

Attaturk rammed Westernisation hard down his people's throats. It was not exactly an organic growth of secularism as for example seems to have happened here - it was dictatorial, imposed by the govt.

Zombrex

Wibbs wrote:

Agreed again. The only difference is that Mohammed personally started as he meant to go on. He was more successful militarily.

It could be argued he had a army, Jesus didn't. As soon as the Christians had an army they acted in a similar way to the Muslims. Not because they were particularly evil in relative terms, but that is just what you did back then.

Mohammad united the tribes of Arabia. He did this by war, but then again everyone did that by war in those days. I'm under no illusion that Mohammad was a great man, he was a war criminal and a delussional cult figure (to an atheists at least). But he wasn't really doing anything that everyone else was doing. The idea that Mohammad was going out of his way to be violent and evil is incorrect. That is what you did back then. Alexander the Great conquered the known world, burning killing and raping as he went.

Wibbs wrote:

It took the romans to exercise the same force behind Christianity. Again the difference is that Christianity can be "made" a more meek faith by comparison as following exactly the originator of the faith would preclude taking up arms even in self defense. The same can't be said for Islam in it's current form. the framework is more rigid.

Its a nice idea, that one can hold a Christian to the values of his Bible, but unfortunately history has taught us that that doesn't hold.

Despite a lot of people believing that the message of the Bible is one of peace and love, the book is so full of exceptions to this that it is not hard to find ways out of the peace and love bit. Just try arguing with a Christian fundamentalist.

Wibbs wrote:

I'm with you here. They need watching just as much.

Agreed. People need to push for secular seperation of church and civil society as much as possible. That a applied to Christianity as much as Islam.

My main objection over this whole issue is the growing sense of superiority that seems to be emerging in the west as to religion. We seem to think that our Christian society is immune to this type of fundamentalism, that it is something found in the core of Islam, not in Christianity. We seem to use the excuse that Jesus wasn't violent as some kind of get out of jail card. YOu don't need to worry about this happening with Christianity, sure Jesus wasn't violent. Its true, that our records of jesus don't portray him as violent (are records of Jesus are probably mostly made up) But then they portray pretty much everyone else after him as being violent, so that is kinda beside the point.

That would be a very dangerous assumption to make, not only for how we deal with the rising Islamic issues facing Europe and America, but also for how we deal with the increasing fundamentalism coming from within

T-1111111111111

I'm certainly NOT the Pope's judge. He will be justly judged by His Creator, same as I will.

Don't think just because he is a pope he will end up in a nice place, none will end up in a nice place in the afterlife unless Almighty is Merciful to them.

We all have a price to pay. All of us.

Personally between me and the pope - he could be apologising for centuries - but seriously, he'd had enough time to think it over before he said what he said.

If some of you are scared - that's your choice.
If some of you don't care - it's up to you again.
If some of you do care what happens next - then it is also up to you.

The pope has made his choice. And BTW he's not 3 years old to say something so stupid in public unless he really means so, and yes he does, God knows best, but I think his apology is a hollow thing.

Schuhart

Wicknight wrote:

So really you are left with a comparision of Jesus and Mohammad. Most people in the west generally believe that Jesus taught love and peace and Mohammad taugh violence and submission. But comparisions are a little pointless since we actually don't know what Jesus taught.

As I’ve said, the contrast is in the original revelation. You are absolutely right to say that all we are really comparing is what each tradition says about its founder. For all we know, Jesus might actually have preached death for all unbelievers and Mohammed might have been a Buddhist. But I do feel that the contrast in those founding myths as we understand them today is or interest.

Wicknight wrote:

Well it is only really the fudamentalist Muslims who put "great store" in the objectional passanges of Quran. Most Muslims, at least in the west, don't believe in things like stonings.

I am focussing on the mainstream doctrine of each faith. For example, it is mainstream Islamic doctrine that apostates should be subject to a death penalty. I’d guess most Western Muslims would regard that idea as screwy. But the fact remains the doctrine is deficient.

Wicknight wrote:

You are confusing too things here. One the actual teaching of the religion and two how seriously some of its followers take that teaching.

Hopefully its clear that, in this discussion, I’m mostly focussing on the doctrine. I do think that doctrine has an influence in what people believe. But clearly a liberally inclined Muslim who understands that scripture is scripture will be a more tolerant person than a Christian who believes every word in the old testament fully and literally applies.

Zombrex

fly_agaric wrote:

Really? I thought that was some my God is bigger stuff from Christianity. Laying claim to the celebrations of the Pagan Gods.

Not really, though that might have been the spin the Church put on it later on. When these traditons originated the Christians were still a small cult, and had much to fear from the mainstream religions.

To allow them to celebrate their holidays they organised them around the more traditional pagan holidays, allowing them to celebrate largely unnoticed.

fly_agaric wrote:

That and appealing to new converts perhaps (you can still enjoy your old holidays and have a knees-up but dedicate them to Jesus and God now instead of the old Gods).

That is certainly true.

The Christians adapted their religion to seem not as strange from the mainstream religions, partly for protection to not seem as unusal a religion, but also as you say to help convert people to the religion.

Some historians believe that is where the idea of Patron Saints comes from. In the Pagan religions each area of life or craft had a god looking after it. Christians were hononring saints from about 100AD on, and the Christians replaced the multiple patron gods idea with the idea of patron Saints looking over areas of society because obviously you couldn't have people praying to lots of gods for help in a monotheist religon.

fly_agaric wrote:

The only "Western" country where Christian Fundies are really strong is the US. Which is obviously bad because the US is very powerful. Is that the reason why you say "a heck of alot bigger"?

Yes. The rising Christian fundamentalism in the US today is far more worrying than the rising of Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East 20 years ago.

fly_agaric wrote:

They are a joke everywhere apart from the US.

At the moment yes. I am wondering when our laughter is going to start turning into the more approprate panic and fear. They have already elected a president who started 2 wars in 4 years.

We dismiss it because it is going on in another country. But then so is the bulk of Islamic fundamentalism that is largely confined to the Middle East.

I mean what exactly do people fear from Islamic fundamentalism emerging in the Middle East that they don't fear from Christian fundamentalism emerging in the US?

fly_agaric wrote:

The fundamentalist Christians have not carried out as much violence (yet??) or made so many threats (yet??) have they?

There have been over 200 bombings and arson attacks against abortion clinics in the US since the mid 70s. Since 1993 10 people have been shot in relation to abortion clinics. There have been 750 letters threatening abortion clinics with antrax attacks since 1998, 520 of them from the same group in 2001 following the 9/11 attacks.

So I suppose it depends on how you define "as much". Have Christian fundamentalists flown planes into skyscrapers? No. But then again neither have most Muslim groups that one would consider fundamentalists or extreme.

fly_agaric wrote:

You are not going to say that Iraq and Afghanistan are Christian Fundamentalist wars are you?

No, but I was tempted Bush certainly sees the world through the eyes of a Christian fundamentalists. The idea of good and evil, God's followers verse the ungodly

fly_agaric wrote:

Attaturk rammed Westernisation hard down his people's throats. It was not exactly an organic growth of secularism as for example seems to have happened here - it was dictatorial, imposed by the govt.

Attaturks reforms proved quite popular, though you are right they were rammed down the throats of those who opposed them. There was a mass protest last month in Turkey to oppose any moves to remove secularisation from the country, even though I would consider Turkey too secular in that it bans certain expression of Muslim life such as certain types of scarfs.

Wibbs

Wicknight wrote:

It could be argued he had a army, Jesus didn't.

True, but it could be argued he turned down the offer of an army as many at the time were clamouring for a military messiah to overturn the Romans. A position he rejected often. "Give all to caesar that's caesars" was the gist. Quite a secular chappy in many ways at least with regard to government and tax.

That is what you did back then. Alexander the Great conquered the known world, burning killing and raping as he went.

Luckily he didn't start a religion. We'd be in real doodoo if he did.:D

Its a nice idea, that one can hold a Christian to the values of his Bible, but unfortunately history has taught us that that doesn't hold.

True

Agreed. People need to push for secular seperation of church and civil society as much as possible.

From your mouth to god's ears(or not).:D

T-1111111111111 wrote:

If some of you are scared - that's your choice.
If some of you don't care - it's up to you again.
If some of you do care what happens next - then it is also up to you.

What exactly does that mean?

ScumLord

I don't know what their complaining about they seem to have double standards. You always hear the west and the pope is evil from Islamic countrys surely they expected some sort of comeback in the who's got the better religion arguement.

Zombrex

Schuhart wrote:

But I do feel that the contrast in those founding myths as we understand them today is or interest.

It certainly is interesting, why each religion developed the way it did, but I would question the relievance they have to day to stop the rise of fundamenatlism, or acts of violence.

Schuhart wrote:

I am focussing on the mainstream doctrine of each faith. For example, it is mainstream Islamic doctrine that apostates should be subject to a death penalty.

Well first of all many Muslims would say that that isn't true.

http://www.answering-christianity.com/apostates.htm

That website has a long list of things that they believe fundamentalists have got wrong about the Quran, from women not being aloud education, to beards being manditory, to non-believers should be killed

Again and again will those who disbelieve, wish that they had bowed (to God's will) in Islam. Leave them alone, to enjoy (the good things of this life) and to please themselves: let (false) hope amuse them: soon will knowledge (undeceive them). Quran 15:2-3

Say: 'Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger: but if ye turn away, he is only responsible for the duty placed on him and ye for that placed on you. If ye obey him, ye shall be on right guidance. The Messenger's duty is only to preach the clear (Message).Quran 24:54

The problem with the Quran, along with the Bible, is that it can be really used to justify anything you like. The Bible was used to justify countless wars in the past, which go against the idea of Christian love.

And secondly if one does find a passage to support the view that those who leave the faith should die (and I'm sure one can considering the amount of contradiction in the Quran) it is only "mainstream" in so far as it is the mainstream doctrine of the Christian faith that witches deserve to die.

You are being a bit unfair to Islam here. You are talking a certain fundamentalists interpretation of the the writings of the Quran and saying that these are the mainstream doctrine of the religion.

You aren't doing that with Christianity, despite the fact that Christian doctrine states that one must believe the Bible is literal just as Islam says, instead viewing mainstream Christianity as the very dilluted Christianity we have today in the West, whos followers are heavily infulenced by secular rationalism and enlightnement. To be fair you should really be taking what the most extreme Christians believe and calling that mainstream since they interpreat the Bible in a literal way to justify immorality, as you seem to be claiming mainstream Islam does.

Zombrex

Wibbs wrote:

Quite a secular chappy in many ways at least with regard to government and tax.

So is the Quran, if people only followed it

Wibbs

Wicknight wrote:

So is the Quran, if people only followed it

Not really. That would be somewhat true if one was a Quran only Muslim(and there are a few out there). Most Muslims also follow the Sunna/Hadeeth of the prophet and the Sharia would come along with that to a lesser or greater extent. Most of the issues would come along with those two. EG The Quran is less descriptive about how women should cover up whereas various hadeeth would be far more precise. The seperation of church and state would also be difficult if not impossible when faced with the instructions of Hadeeth/sharia where electing a leader and even taxation, banking and commerce are very well covered. Even down to specific taxation levied on non Muslims in the state. Such jurisprudence is lacking in the Gospel texts. Although laws were based on some of it, the hard and fast rules would be seriously lacking by comparison.

fly_agaric

T-1111111111111 wrote:

I'm certainly NOT the Pope's judge. He will be justly judged by His Creator, same as I will.

Okay then.

Wicknight wrote:

I am wondering when our laughter is going to start turning into the more approprate panic and fear.

I suppose when people begin to get the feeling that Christian fundamentalism is having a negative influence on their everyday lives (as they seem to about the Muslim type of it).

The only mass-mobilisation of them I can recall in any way close to home was when they tried and failed to get the Beeb to ditch "Jerry Springer the Opera".

As we saw there, they simply could not compete in doggedness and certainly not in malice with their Muslim mirrors in the UK so they failed miserably and were mocked and laughed at.

Maybe some in the US living in the states where the Christian fundamentalists are most powerful feel that panic and fear - but not in Europe.

They (those Americans) certainly have more to fear from it in their everyday lives than from Muslim fundamentalism given that the US's Muslim population is pretty tiny and the fundamentalists and the violent/dangerous extremists are then merely some fraction of that already tiny population.
I think the terrorists are going to struggle to successfully recruit people already in the US or to get people into the US to do anything as security there will probably continue to get tighter and more oppressive over the next few years.

Wicknight wrote:

No, but I was tempted

I though so.:)

ISAW

T-1111111111111 wrote:

You know exactly what I meant by Pope's lies.

actually I dont but please dont call me a liar for stating that. and if you now know That I dont given I have just told you that then claiming I do is a lie isnt it?

But let me 1stly repeat that the Pope did lie.

You do know what a lie is dont you? I already told you but Ill tell you again. a lie is when you believe something to to be the true story but you say the opposite of the true story.

Now, what is the particular lie you say the Pope made?

He supported a nasty lie. Therefore he also is guilty of what he said and supported and will have to pay the price.

what did he say that was a lie?
what did he support that was a lie?
What price will he have to pay?

If somebody's is stealing while the other is watching and guarding the crime area until the 1st guy is finished - they are both guilty. Maybe not equally, but they both are guilty.

what did the Pope do which is tantamount to assisting to or being an accessory to a crime?

So, take it as you want - but the Pope did lie by supporting an ugly lie.

Oh so your first accusation is being driopped? i.e. that he actually lied?
You cant support that so I take it you withdraw it?

On to number 2. what did the pope say that supported a lie?
Can you provide any evidence for that?
are you not arguing from ignorance?

Simple as that. Now if you wana play dictionary or synonym games I advise you to do it with urself cos I don't have time for that.

YOU made the claim that the Pope lied! so it is for YOU to support it. I asked you for the lie and you didnt suppluied it. You accuse someone and cant provide the evidence. This is called "bearing false witness". Please back up your own words and dont try to claim I should have to provide anything.You claimed it you support it!

fly_agaric

Wicknight wrote:

We dismiss it because it is going on in another country. But then so is the bulk of Islamic fundamentalism that is largely confined to the Middle East.

I mean what exactly do people fear from Islamic fundamentalism emerging in the Middle East that they don't fear from Christian fundamentalism emerging in the US?

Maybe the general familiarity of the US (for people in Europe anyways) makes people less nervous of the trend towards Christian fundamentalism there and the "otherness"/"outsideness" of Muslim's fundamentalism makes it more scary?
Maybe there is more fear because the growth in power of Islamic fundamentalism has coicided with large Muslim migration from Africa and the Middle East into Europe because of economic/political messes in their original countries and the building up of sizeable muslim minorities almost all over Europe?
So the fear of muslim fundamentalists is added to by standard xenophobia, fears of "invasion" or a fifth-column [which the fundamentalists like to stoke also because it gives them a power/ego trip and gets them great publicity, which the media is always happy to give them].
In addition of course, Christian fundamentalists have not being hitting people where they live in Europe by engaging in terrorist acts here and causing us all to have to put up with alot of security bull even if many of them would be partly responsible for alot of chaos and bloodshed in the world by being supporters of BushII and his foriegn policy.

Wicknight wrote:

There have been over 200 bombings and arson attacks against abortion clinics in the US since the mid 70s. Since 1993 10 people have been shot in relation to abortion clinics. There have been 750 letters threatening abortion clinics with antrax attacks since 1998, 520 of them from the same group in 2001 following the 9/11 attacks.

:eek:
Do you keep an eye on these nuts or something because they worry you or is there somewhere such stats are easily available?

Wicknight wrote:

Attaturks reforms proved quite popular, though you are right they were rammed down the throats of those who opposed them. There was a mass protest last month in Turkey to oppose any moves to remove secularisation from the country, even though I would consider Turkey too secular in that it bans certain expression of Muslim life such as certain types of scarfs.

I worry what will happen to Turkey when it becomes ever clearer there is no chance at all now (IMO) that they will get into the EU...

wolfsbane

T - 111... said:

You know and I know and everybody with at least a bit of a human mind knows that Muhammed saws did not use violence to spread Islam.

At last, the reason for all the violence, threats and murder from the Ilsamic world in reaction to the Pope's speech: he wrongly accused Muhammad of spreading Islam by the sword.

So it appears to be T - 111...'s position that Muhammad's use of force was entirely defensive. His later followers never invaded other lands and imposed Islam; they just removed the existing religion and allowed those who wished to retain it to do so, provided they accepted their dhimmitude.

Even given this generous interpretation of history, most of us would see it as the use of the sword to spread Islam. So we could not accuse the Pope of lying about it.

In actual practise today, what do we find the Islamic world doing? The enforcement of Islamic law not only on Muslims, but on all of any society they are strong enough to get away with it (Northern Nigeria is a prime example). The murder of apostates. The 'honour' murders of girls who offend modesty requirements. The murder of practising Christians and the burning of their churches.

There are of course many moderate Muslims. Many secular ones too. But they are not the ones in control of Islamic states, and are not the ones taking the lead and winning mass support in the Muslim communities in Europe.

The Muslims we will be dealing with in the future are not the 'live and let live' neighbours we have mostly known to date, but those emboldened by power to be persecutors. It's time we took our heads out of the sand and stopped believing the solemn assurances and instead looked at the actions of the Islamic world and what their leaders are telling them about our future.

Schuhart

Wicknight wrote:

It certainly is interesting, why each religion developed the way it did, but I would question the relievance they have to day to stop the rise of fundamenatlism, or acts of violence.

I agree that the official doctrine of a faith is not the end of the story. Also terrorism is the political equivalent of stalking, so it is unfair to brand a whole faith for the actions of a few. But I feel it is reasonable to see a faith’s teaching about its founder as of more than passing interest. And the contrast is striking.

Wicknight wrote:

You are being a bit unfair to Islam here. You are talking a certain fundamentalists interpretation of the the writings of the Quran and saying that these are the mainstream doctrine of the religion.

I don’t agree this is the case. On the specific issue of apostasy, at the risk of saying ‘I’ll see your website and raise you mine’, I think this post on islamonline.net is a reasonable summary of the position as I understand it.

All Muslim jurists agree that the apostate is to be punished. However, they differ regarding the punishment itself. The majority of them go for killing; meaning that an apostate is to be sentenced to death.

This belief is both part of mainstream Islam and inconsistent with the idea of religious freedom as commonly understood.

Wicknight wrote:

Christian doctrine states that one must believe the Bible is literal just as Islam says

But hopefully you’ll understand I find it hard to accept that mainstream Christianity sees the Bible in the same literal way as Islam sees the Quran when there’s a speech by the leader of the largest Christian church linked to this thread, where he cheerfully mentions in passing that the New Testament was influenced by the culture of the people who wrote it.

Let me say, I find it hard to figure how exactly the Pope squares that with the idea that this is divine word, and I would be intrigued to find out. But I can at least acknowledge he’s not trying to deny reality on this particular point.

wolfsbane

MeditationMom said:

Look at the harm done to Islam by the actions of the terrorists.

It seems to have increased devotion to Islam amongst its members. The West, the Jews and Christianity are the bad guys, Osama and his martyrs the best of men. It has only damaged Islam's reputation amongst ecumenists/multifaithers, and even they are at great pains to suggest the jihad is only supported by a few extremists and that against the principles of peace-loving Islam.

If truth could be passed on from one human being to another, Jesus, Buddha or Mohammed, it would have happened by now. No phrophet, Son of God, scripture, sword or Church has ever accomplished it. Violent or not.

I'm not sure what you mean. Every religion has made converts from others. Some of those were by force (therefore, only outward), but many were by argument and example. Authentic Christianity was entirely of that sort. To use myself as an example, no pressure was used on me to convert.

So Christians like myself continue to fulfil Christ's great commission: to go into all the world and preach the gospel to everyone, that they may be converted and saved from the wrath to come. We do not go and force them to convert or else.

wolfsbane

Schuhart said:

But hopefully you’ll understand I find it hard to accept that mainstream Christianity sees the Bible in the same literal way as Islam sees the Quran when there’s a speech by the leader of the largest Christian church linked to this thread, where he cheerfully mentions in passing that the New Testament was influenced by the culture of the people who wrote it.

Let me say, I find it hard to figure how exactly the Pope squares that with the idea that this is divine word, and I would be intrigued to find out. But I can at least acknowledge he’s not trying to deny reality on this particular point.

Wicknight was pointing out that Christian doctrine requires the Bible to be regarded as God-breathed, inerrant, infallible. Not that all churches or their leaders hold to that.

Wicknight's mistake is in thinking this means all that was commanded in one part must still be commanded in another, i.e., that the Old Testament legislation for the nation of Israel must still apply to them and the church today. But the Bible itself explains why that is not so. God gave temporary commandments to Israel under Moses' Law; He also gave them permanent ones. The former were abolished when Christ fulfilled and abolished the Old Covenant and set up the New Covenant. The permanent commands remain in force, e.g., 'You shall love your neighbour as yourself'.

So I can say that God's command to Israel to exterminate the inhabitants of Canaan was a valid thing then (a God-commanded exercise of His wrath against the wicked), but for Israel to do so today would be wicked. The New Covenant removed all the earthly types and shadows - the animal sacrifices, land, etc. - and replaced them with the heavenly realities. Christ became the lamb of God that made atonement for His people. The Land of promise is the New Heavens and New Earth that await His people. The people are no longer the nation of believing and unbelieving Jews, but the nation of believing Jews and believing Gentiles. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%203:19-29;&version=50;

Zombrex

Schuhart wrote:

I don’t agree this is the case. On the specific issue of apostasy, at the risk of saying ‘I’ll see your website and raise you mine’, I think this post on islamonline.net is a reasonable summary of the position as I understand it.

You are touching on an interesting topic there, what is mainstream Islam and what is fundamentalist Islam?

IslamOnline.net was founded by Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who would be a well know Muslim scholar who has a program on al Jazeera. He is also the person you are quoting.

He would be considered a moderate conservative in the Middle East, often attacked by the more conservative elements in the Middle East for being too liberal in his interpretation of Islam. He has called for "real" democracy throughout the Muslim world (the "real" bit is mean democracy free from influence by the west). At the same time he has seemed to support bombings against Israeli civilians with the logic that Israel is a military society so all Israelis are legitamate targets, and he has been banned from entering America since 1999.

So I guess the question is "what is mainstream Islam". Is it the mainstream Islam in the Middle East, taught by peope like al-Qaradawi. Is the mainstream of the British Muslims, which unfortunately seems to be getting more conservative, moving closer to the mainstream of the Middle East since 9/11.

Personally I don't know enough about Islam in the west to know the answer to that question. None of the Muslims I know in Ireland would hold views anywhere near as conservative as someone like al-Qaradawi, yet he is considered a moderate in the Middle East. That could mean that the Muslims I know are actually quite liberal. I hope not, I hope that they represent the views of mainstream Muslims in Ireland.

I think no matter how nice we are about it there is certainly a clash of ideas (I dont mean violent clash necessarily as some believe is coming), secular society vs Islam's ideas of freedom and democracy, around the corner. But that is probably a topic for another thread. The Pope is still and idiot, whether this clash is coming or not

Kinda makes you glad to be an atheists

Mick86

wolfsbane wrote:

Anyone help me understand what the offence is that the Pope is accused of? Are the Muslims claiming Muhammad did not advocate spreading the faith by the sword? Or are they saying such coercion is not evil? Or is the objection the fact that the Pope has reminded us of this unpleasant fact?

The slightest criticism of Islam is not allowed and is cause for jihad and summary execution of the critic. Which is fair enough from teh world's most peaceful religion.:rolleyes:

Zombrex

Mick86 wrote:

The slightest criticism of Islam is not allowed and is cause for jihad and summary execution of the critic. Which is fair enough from teh world's most peaceful religion.:rolleyes:

"Behead those who say Islam is violent"

Mick86

UU wrote:

Oh the Pope is very silly for throwing his words around on such sensitive matters like that.

True, none of us should ever express an opinion in case we offend someone.

UU wrote:

Does he need to be reminded of the rather scary Mohammed cartoon protests?

Who does? But lets face it, virtually anything can offend a Muslim. Should we tip toe about our daily lives in case we start a jihad?

UU wrote:

Well, Mr. Benedict is obviously covering his hate list of groups he dislikes. Lets have a re-run, shall we?

- Gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transsexuals
- Atheists, secularists, sceptics
- Protestants
- Liberals

And now, the latest addition: Muslims!

He's a Catholic Fundamentalist:rolleyes: . What do you expect. Incidentally Muslims hate all those people also, including other Muslims.

UU wrote:

I really hope he knows what he's getting into for his sake because the Vatican could be the next target for an Islamic terrorist attack . . . . . .

Anywhere could. But on the bright side Pope Benedict is on the fast track to heaven so death doesn't really worry him. And if he gets wacked for the faith he's virtually guaranteed becoming an official saint. On top of that there's teh possibility that when Islam starts attacking the Catholic Church all those lapsed Catholics will get upset and return to the faith. It's a win/win situation for the Pope.:D

T-1111111111111

Mick86 wrote:

Anywhere could. But on the bright side Pope Benedict is on the fast track to heaven so death doesn't really worry him. And if he gets wacked for the faith he's virtually guaranteed becoming an official saint. On top of that there's teh possibility that when Islam starts attacking the Catholic Church all those lapsed Catholics will get upset and return to the faith. It's a win/win situation for the Pope.:D

And on the real side:

Win/win for the pope? The way he acts now and the way his belief is, I would strongly disagree. Read below the words of the Lord of the Universe and the Earth and everything between them.



وَلَقَدْ آتَيْنَا مُوسَى الْكِتَابَ وَقَفَّيْنَا مِن بَعْدِهِ بِالرُّسُلِ وَآتَيْنَا عِيسَى ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ الْبَيِّنَاتِ وَأَيَّدْنَاهُ بِرُوحِ الْقُدُسِ أَفَكُلَّمَا جَاءكُمْ رَسُولٌ بِمَا لاَ تَهْوَى أَنفُسُكُمُ اسْتَكْبَرْتُمْ فَفَرِيقاً كَذَّبْتُمْ وَفَرِيقاً تَقْتُلُونَ

And verily We gave unto Moses the Scripture and We caused a train of messengers to follow after him, and We gave unto Jesus, son of Mary, clear proofs (of Allah's sovereignty), and We supported him with the holy Spirit is it ever so, that, when there cometh unto you a messenger (from Allah) with that which ye yourselves desire not, ye grow arrogant, and some ye disbelieve and some ye slay?
2:87

وَقَالُواْ قُلُوبُنَا غُلْفٌ بَل لَّعَنَهُمُ اللَّه بِكُفْرِهِمْ فَقَلِيلاً مَّا يُؤْمِنُونَ

And they say: Our hearts are hardened. Nay, but Allah hath cursed them for their unbelief. Little is that which they believe.
2:88

وَلَمَّا جَاءهُمْ كِتَابٌ مِّنْ عِندِ اللّهِ مُصَدِّقٌ لِّمَا مَعَهُمْ وَكَانُواْ مِن قَبْلُ يَسْتَفْتِحُونَ عَلَى الَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ فَلَمَّا جَاءهُم مَّا عَرَفُواْ كَفَرُواْ بِهِ فَلَعْنَةُ اللَّه عَلَى الْكَافِرِينَ

And when there cometh unto them a Scripture from Allah, confirming that in their possession though before that they were asking for a signal triumph over those who disbelieved and when there cometh unto them that which they know (to be the Truth) they disbelieve therein. The curse of Allah is on disbelievers.
2:89

بِئْسَمَا اشْتَرَوْاْ بِهِ أَنفُسَهُمْ أَن يَكْفُرُواْ بِمَا أنَزَلَ اللّهُ بَغْياً أَن يُنَزِّلُ اللّهُ مِن فَضْلِهِ عَلَى مَن يَشَاء مِنْ عِبَادِهِ فَبَآؤُواْ بِغَضَبٍ عَلَى غَضَبٍ وَلِلْكَافِرِينَ عَذَابٌ مُّهِينٌ

Evil is that for which they sell their souls: that they should disbelieve in that which Allah hath revealed, grudging that Allah should reveal of His bounty unto whom He will of His bondmen. They have incurred anger upon anger. For disbelievers is a shameful doom.
2:90

وَإِذَا قِيلَ لَهُمْ آمِنُواْ بِمَا أَنزَلَ اللّهُ قَالُواْ نُؤْمِنُ بِمَا أُنزِلَ عَلَيْنَا وَيَكْفُرونَ بِمَا وَرَاءهُ وَهُوَ الْحَقُّ مُصَدِّقاً لِّمَا مَعَهُمْ قُلْ فَلِمَ تَقْتُلُونَ أَنبِيَاء اللّهِ مِن قَبْلُ إِن كُنتُم مُّؤْمِنِينَ

And when it is said unto them. Believe in that which Allah hath revealed, they say: We believe in that which was revealed unto us. And they disbelieve in that which cometh after it, though it is the truth confirming that which they possess. Say (unto them, O Muhammad): Why then slew ye the Prophets of Allah aforetime, if ye are (indeed) believers?
2:91

Schuhart

Wicknight wrote:

I think no matter how nice we are about it there is certainly a clash of ideas (I dont mean violent clash necessarily as some believe is coming), secular society vs Islam's ideas of freedom and democracy, around the corner.

I think you are right to put the focus on ideas, and that is where the real issue lies in my opinion. People, by and large, just want to get on with things. Few people of any faith want to bomb abortion clinics or crash planes into office blocks.

Given that Islam has no central structure, I expect deciding what is mainstream will always be problematic as it depends on establishing if there seems to be a general consensus on a particular point. That said, I think an amount of the concerns that might be expressed would be revealed in the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam. As I understand it, this document would claim itself to be a reaction to the implicit Western values of the UN Declaration on Human Rights.

That all sounds fine and laudable, until you realise that their problem in practical terms boils down to thing like the UNDHR would guarentee your right to change faith from Islam, permit freedom of thought that might undermine Islam, allow Muslim women to marry non-Muslims, demand equality for women (as distinct from the ‘equal dignity’ concept in the CDHRI which is not intended to be a statement of equality in other matters) and prevent any discrimination in legal rights on the basis of religion.

I know we have to watch our own cultural preferences, and be careful that we are not merely prefering what is familiar to us over what is strange. Equally, we have to be mindful that Muslims are not roaming the streets of Dublinlooking for apostates to stone, or anything like that. But some mindset produced the CDHRI that seemed to have an amount of official acceptance in predominantly Muslim countries.

It would claim Islam as its inspiration, and specifically both lauds the Islam conception of society and establishes the Sharia as the ultimate source of justice. But when you boil it down to specifics, its just dressing up compulsion in religious faith as human rights.

This mindset seems to me to be a good distance from where it needs to be, and I don’t think that can be dismissed as a cultural bias.

robindch

T-1111111111111, could you go easy on the long and heavily formatted arabic quotations from the qu'ran, please? Your message will be a bit clearer if you can trim them down and present just the bits relevant to the point you're making, rather than embedding (like your last post) forty words of your own text amongst almost seven hundred words of supporting quotations that I frankly doubt that anybody reads. Thanks.

ISAW

T-1111111111111 wrote:

And on the real side:

Win/win for the pope? The way he acts now and the way his belief is, I would strongly disagree.

what does that mean?

...We supported him with the holy Spirit

so the Koran does refer to the "Holy Spirit"

And they say: Our hearts are hardened. Nay, but Allah hath cursed them for their unbelief. Little is that which they believe.
2:88

The curse of Allah is on disbelievers.
2:89

They have incurred anger upon anger. For disbelievers is a shameful doom.
2:90

But what do you think this "curse" or "doom" is? And it is obvious the Pope does not believe in Islam. But you singled him out distince from all "unbelieving infidel." Did you not? Did you not say he lied? So what is the lie and what is the punishment?

Mick86

T-1111111111111 wrote:

the Pope LIED.

Of course he lied. He lied when he said he respected Islam. He does nothing of the sort because to him all Muslims are heretics and he cannot, as Pope, respect heresy. Could a Muslim equivalent of a pope say truthfully that he respects Christianity? He Could not, because the tenets of Christianity contradict his every belief. What both should respect is the right of others to worship as they wish. But to Islam in particular and religion in general such toleration is unacceptable.

Did the pope lie about Islam being a violent religion? No he did not. Islam preaches violence and many of it's followers practice it. The fact that Christianity has preached violence and that many of it's followers practice it also does not take away from nor excuse that fact.

Mick86

T-1111111111111 wrote:

And on the real side:

Win/win for the pope? The way he acts now and the way his belief is, I would strongly disagree. Read below the words of the Lord ....

No thanks, there's enough silliness abroad without me studying the words of a seventh century Arab witha god fixation.

Zombrex

Schuhart wrote:

That said, I think an amount of the concerns that might be expressed would be revealed in the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam. As I understand it, this document would claim itself to be a reaction to the implicit Western values of the UN Declaration on Human Rights.

I would agree.

While there is a lot to applauded in the CDHR, and it would be great progress if the Middle Eastern countries could actually stick to it which they routinely don't, you are right that in some areas such as religion and women, it falls far far short of the UNDHR (which of course many countries also don't follow unfortunately)

I think the problem is that due to the rise in fundamentalism in the area the Middle East is trapped in an age where the government reflects the religion and the religion reflects the government. This was Ireland 50 years ago, and some would say it is the way America is worrying going at the moment.

The problem then is that the governments are restricted in what they will accept by the religion that defines them. The Muslim countries would argue that they cannot accept something like the UNDHR because it violates the foundation of the state. But what they really mean is that it violates the dogma of their religion which is what the state is founded upon.

The obvious solution to this in the west is to push for secular governments. But again you run into trouble because any push for a secular government is seen as an attack against the religion, because they are so interlinked.

It seems amazing but many in the Middle East fear secular ideas. One would think that they would prefer that over the west enforcing Christianity on them, but I think the logic is that because the government reflects the religion and vice versa a secular government is almost seen as atheism. And if there is one thing fundamentalists or even missinformed mainstream religious people fear more than anything else is atheism (atheists are considered more "unamerican" to American Christians than Muslims and homosexuals combined, and most Americans would rather live beside a Middle Eastern muslim than an atheist).

So I suppose the point I'm trying to make, to tie back with the Pope's speach, is that one must be very careful in how things are put to the Muslim world.

Of course someone like Mick86 might say "Why? Why should we be careful. We are right"

But it doesn't really matter who is right or wrong unless one wants to play the my religion is better than your religion game. Which is fine but ultimately pointless. If on the other want we in the west want to help the secular liberal ideas we hold dear filter into the Muslims world we can't do it with the sledgehammer of insult and provocation.

The west developed the freedoms we enjoy today not by either changing the religions of the Judeo/Christian church, nor from destroying them. We developed the freedoms by seperating religion and state/government to a point where someone can be as fundamentalist christian as they like but that is a private matter for them. This wasn't easy. While many like to state (correctly) that Islam is very tied up in government or the people and vice versa, so too was Europe for a long time.

This can be over come but only by the Muslims themselves. Are job in the west shouldn't be to force them over come, or simply sit there laughing at them for not. It should be attempting to convince them that it is the best evolution for their world.

Group hug everybody

Cantab.

Mick86 wrote:

Of course he lied. He lied when he said he respected Islam. He does nothing of the sort because to him all Muslims are heretics and he cannot, as Pope, respect heresy. Could a Muslim equivalent of a pope say truthfully that he respects Christianity? He Could not, because the tenets of Christianity contradict his every belief. What both should respect is the right of others to worship as they wish. But to Islam in particular and religion in general such toleration is unacceptable.

Did the pope lie about Islam being a violent religion? No he did not. Islam preaches violence and many of it's followers practice it. The fact that Christianity has preached violence and that many of it's followers practice it also does not take away from nor excuse that fact.

To say the Pope is a liar is utterly ridiculous. You use the word 'respect' quite a lot - this word has many different meanings to many different people and is quite a word for the PC-brigade. I would say that the Pope does 'respect' Islam, but in the sense that he sees (my humble interpretation) all Muslims as human beings, children of God, with the potential for good.

We must draw a line between Islam and Catholicism - from a fundamental theological perspective, they are totally incompatible with each other. In the context of inter-faith dialogue, we must concentrate on the similarities and goodness of both sides, but not ignore the differences and disagreements which are at the core of both faiths. In essence, what I am trying to say is: tolerance, compassion and respect, yes; moral relativism and the dilution of the Truth, no.

The Pope is not a liar. He is highly intelligent, has devoted his life to God and the Truth and does not let words just 'slip out' - people are reading into his words so as to suit their own agendas. I don't know whether such people do this out of spite, ignorance or wilful disrespect for the Holy Father.

Cantab.

Mick86

Cantab. wrote:

To say the Pope is a liar is utterly ridiculous.

Why? He's a human being isn't he? He's quite as capable of lying as you or me.

Cantab. wrote:

I would say that the Pope does 'respect' Islam, but in the sense that he sees (my humble interpretation) all Muslims as human beings, children of God, with the potential for good.

You're confusing respect for individual Muslims with respect for Islam. I dealt with teh distinction in my post.

Cantab. wrote:

We must draw a line between Islam and Catholicism - from a fundamental theological perspective, they are totally incompatible with each other.

Yep. I said that too.

Cantab. wrote:

In the context of inter-faith dialogue, we must concentrate on the similarities and goodness of both sides, but not ignore the differences and disagreements which are at the core of both faiths. .

If you do that tehre will be no true understanding.

Cantab. wrote:

The Pope is not a liar. He is highly intelligent, has devoted his life to God and the Truth and does not let words just 'slip out' - people are reading into his words so as to suit their own agendas. I don't know whether such people do this out of spite, ignorance or wilful disrespect for the Holy Father.

Rubbish.

T-1111111111111

robindch wrote:

T-1111111111111, could you go easy on the long and heavily formatted arabic quotations from the qu'ran, please? Your message will be a bit clearer if you can trim them down and present just the bits relevant to the point you're making, rather than embedding (like your last post) forty words of your own text amongst almost seven hundred words of supporting quotations that I frankly doubt that anybody reads. Thanks.

I'll tell you why I can't post "only the bits relevant to sth" - that's because I do not want to post 1 single verse (these bits usually require at least 1 longer or 3 shorter verses), to get the whole meaning, I'll always post at least 3 verses unlike some (non-Muslim) people who post sometimes only 1 verse and try to get the "smart conclusion" out of that verse to prove their "false point". But if you read a verse before that verse +plus+ the verse +plus+ the verse or 2 after, you surely will get a clearer picture.

Therefore, I will Allah Willing always post at least 3 verses from the Qur'an when I decide to quote the Qur'an.

T-1111111111111

ISAW wrote:

what does that mean?



so the Koran does refer to the "Holy Spirit"

The Holy Spirit is Angel Gabriel, peace upon him. That is one of his names. Read the meaning of the Qur'an, do not make smart conclusion without firstly checking who actually was meant by the Holy Spirit there.

ISAW wrote:

But what do you think this "curse" or "doom" is? And it is obvious the Pope does not believe in Islam. But you singled him out distince from all "unbelieving infidel." Did you not? Did you not say he lied? So what is the lie and what is the punishment?

i.e. Many Jews and Christians did not want to believe in the Qur'an as Word of Almighty. Also, they did not want to believe that Muhammed, blessings and peace be upon him, is the final Prophet and Messenger of God. Therefore they disbelieved. And that's why for them is a shameful doom (unless they come back to God and accept His Final Messenger and His Final Revelation - The Qur'an).

It's just my opinion, if you want an official opinion or explanation on those verses, maybe I could point you to one of the fatwa websites.

Cantab.

Wicknight wrote:

If on the other want we in the west want to help the secular liberal ideas we hold dear filter into the Muslims world we can't do it with the sledgehammer of insult and provocation.

Yeah, because secular, liberal values are a role model for people in the middle east... Liberalism is a sin AFAIC. And this 'we' business is annoying me. Speak for yourself.

Wicknight wrote:

The west developed the freedoms we enjoy today not by either changing the religions of the Judeo/Christian church, nor from destroying them. We developed the freedoms by seperating religion and state/government to a point where someone can be as fundamentalist christian as they like but that is a private matter for them.

Religion is not a private matter. Catholicism to me is the tenant on which I base my whole life on. So if someone takes offence to my public witness to the Church and God, that's their problem, not mine.

Wicknight wrote:

This wasn't easy. While many like to state (correctly) that Islam is very tied up in government or the people and vice versa, so too was Europe for a long time.

This can be over come but only by the Muslims themselves. Are job in the west shouldn't be to force them over come, or simply sit there laughing at them for not. It should be attempting to convince them that it is the best evolution for their world.

Group hug everybody

You seem to be one of these crusties intent on tree-hugging the universal religion tree. Well deism, debonair nihilism and moral relativism is not acceptable to the majority of people living on this planet I can tell you. So instead of trying to impose your own belief system upon others, why don't you just accept the fact that Muslim states wish to remain Muslim states and leave it at that? I suppose you'd also be advocating that the Vatican state becomes a liberal and secular one too? And since when are liberal secularists more enlightened than anyone else?

Mick86

T-1111111111111 wrote:

Therefore, I will Allah Willing always post at least 3 verses from the Qur'an when I decide to quote the Qur'an.

Allah wiiling I'll get you on my ignore list before you do it again.:rolleyes:

ISAW

T-1111111111111 wrote:

And on the real side:

Win/win for the pope? The way he acts now and the way his belief is, I would strongly disagree.

what does that mean?

...We supported him with the holy Spirit

so the Koran does refer to the "Holy Spirit"

And they say: Our hearts are hardened. Nay, but Allah hath cursed them for their unbelief. Little is that which they believe.
2:88

The curse of Allah is on disbelievers.
2:89

They have incurred anger upon anger. For disbelievers is a shameful doom.
2:90

But what do you think this "curse" or "doom" is? And it is obvious the Pope does not believe in Islam. But you singled him out distince from all "unbelieving infidel." Did you not? Did you not say he lied? So what is the lie and what is the punishment?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

And since when are liberal secularists more enlightened than anyone else?

um... since just about always?

that's what liberal secularist means surely