I can't find an English translation of the letter via Google, just the Reuters article cited. It would help to read the text of the letter itself.

Interestingly, the cited IHT version of Peter Graff's Reuters story ends with this --

The pope caused widespread anger among Muslims last year by suggesting Islam was violent, quoting a 14th-century Byzantine emperor who spoke of the Prophet Muhammad's "command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

The leader of more than one billion Roman Catholics repeatedly expressed regret for the reaction to the speech, but stopped short of the unequivocal apology wanted by Muslims.

Sounds, somehow, familiar. The longer version of the same piece includes 'color' such as --

Aref Ali Nayed, one of the signatories and a senior adviser to the Cambridge Interfaith Program at Cambridge University in Britain, said the signatories represented the "99.9 percent of Muslims" who follow mainstream schools and oppose extremism.

"In Islam we have had a problem for some time now where the mainstream voices are drowned out by a minority that choose violence," he said.

The determining factor will be the reception this letter gets among Muslim elites. Then we might move on to consider the rather forbidding points that David Blue has brought up on earlier threads.

Rev. -

Sorry, but the attitude displayed is quite common amongst Christians. As a failed Catholic I can tell you they say during the liturgy "Nicene Creed" as follows:

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father;
through him all things were made. For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven, was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became truly human. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father [and the Son], who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

The following phrase is the one that clinches it for me:

"We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins."

There is nothing there about Baptists or Methodists, etc. All Christians have that attitude that theirs is the one true faith. Notice, one not two or three. There is no room that I see for another faith to be ascendant on the earth.

Now, Ann is often over the top and she is a public figure so many see and hear her. Then they get their shorts twisted up because it offends their sensibilities. BUT, I have heard much worse from evangelical preachers that she has ever said. Given that fact I do not see Ann advocating for the slaughter of the non-believer as others do. She invited him to go to church with her. Pretty benign as far as I can see.

Just sayin' is all....

The Hobo

Hobo, thank you for your ecumenical spirit. But "catholic" (small c) is simply an old word meaning "worldwide" or "universal." Dictionary.com:

adjective
1. broad or wide-ranging in tastes, interests, or the like; having sympathies with all; broad-minded; liberal.
2. universal in extent; involving all; of interest to all.
3. pertaining to the whole Christian body or church.

Ann Coulter does not advocate slaughter of non-beliievers? Really?

We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.

Hobo -

Lutherans say the Nicene creed, including "one holy catholic and apostolic Church."

The Nicene Creed has been the universal declaration of Pauline Christianity since the 4th Century, and it was said both in Rome and Constantinople. In fact, the present form of it was adopted in Constantinople.

Hey Guys-

I said I was a failed Catholic not a failed anything else! Haven't paid that much attention to the others. Most times I find myself in church anymore is for a wedding or a funeral. I don't sing or much else, I mostly daydream. Not to say I am not a believer in a higher power but I took a long journey to be where I am today.

And Rev, as for one quote from 9/13/2001? C'mon, I said the same then, maybe worse. The whole country was PO'ed at them then. And I cannot say much has really changed, has it?

The Islamist preaches absolutism for believers and non-believers alike. They say they wish us to either submit or die. Either choice is death for us. The real death of the mortal body should we not submit. The death of our culture should we submit to their ways.

Now for the matter at hand. I think this call from the so-called Muslim scholars is nothing but kitman. Perhaps a hudna. They see themselves at a disadvantage for the present and only wish a respite to gather their forces. I do not trust the ummah to all of a sudden decide that we can all sing 'Kumbaya' and live happily ever after. That is not going to happen. Maybe in a few hundred years when they have truly reformed Islam to proper civilized standards - yeah, Western ones. Any who really believe they are true in their intentions are just deluded, I fear.

Remember, al Queda declared war on US not the other way around. Just because the Liberals darling Billy Klintoon did not take it seriously does not mean that we should labor under the same delusions as his "spouse" will.

Just sayin' is all.....

There is no peace at present possible with Islam and the only question is what form the conflict will take.

A few scholars send a nice letter. Ho hum. Meanwhile Muslims demand I give up Halloween, Thanksgiving, and Christmas. Muslims won't ring up my pork or booze at the grocery store. They won't pick me up at the airport in taxis if I'm obviously gay, or carrying booze, or a women dressed "immodestly" or with a guide dog. Muslims demand a footbath here, painting the Empire State Building "green" for Eid there, special Muslim only prayer rooms at every public and private place, legalizing polygamy, acceptance of honor killing, and justification for terrorism inside America.

Ann Coulter can say whatever idiot thing she wants, and I don't have to listen. Muslims make constant plans to blow people up and if I'm unlucky they could kill me. At the very least they DEMAND I give up my entire identity.

No more Halloween. Muslims object.

No more Thanksgiving. Muslims object.

No more Christmas. Muslims object.

Muslims object over anything that is non-Muslim. In their own lands they express this by killing people in mass riots/lynchings. In lands made up of non-Muslims they express it by threats followed by terrorism.

Buddhists, Bahais, Jews, Mormons, and even Scientologists don't demand I give up every tradition, cultural heritage, and values that make me who I am. Not even Lord Xenu demands an end to Halloween and Thanksgiving and Christmas. Not even Ann Coulter demands it :>

But Muslims do. This is a guarantee of conflict.

Donald Sensing wrote (#3):

Ann Coulter does not advocate slaughter of non-beliievers [sic]? Really?

We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.

First, I don't get "slaughter" out of "convert", particularly in a modern-day Christian -- and non-Jihadist -- context.

Second, the quotation appears in this article celebrating the heroism and grieving the murder on 9/11 of Barbara Olson, who was able to retrieve her cell phone from under the noses of the hijackers and place a call to her husband, Ted, the solicitor general of the United States, and tell him to alert the FBI that the plane had been hijacked.

Barbara Olson was a personal friend of Coulter who writes, "Barbara was still on the phone with Ted when her plane plunged in a fiery explosion directly into the Pentagon."

The date-time-stamp on the article is 9:05 A.M., September 13, 2001.

If you'd have asked me at that time, a call to "invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity" would have been one of the more merciful things I might have had in mind, as I recall thinking in terms of radiologically hot, glazed, and glowing desert sands rising to the horizon.

Besides, though ruthlessly curt and shrill, how do "invade their countries" and "kill their leaders" differ from what has happened -- or from prophesy of what had to happen?

And when you remember that there's been precious little sectarian warfare between Christians for centuries (and Northern Ireland can't compare to the Iran-Iraq War) how is broad Christianity NOT a good idea to reduce the risk of future war? Not much different from the historical outlook that democracies rarely make war on each other. Impractable, perhaps, and definately not "PC", but not illogical.

Now I doubt I would have put it as Ann Coulter did, but then I am not she. Of course a Christian would see Christianity as a refinement of Judaism -- otherwise, why remain a Christian?

Nor would I have put it as Benedict XVI did last July that other Christian denominations are not true churches. But he's the Pope, and I'm not. If Joseph Alois Ratzinger didn't really believe as such, he wouldn't be the leader of the Roman "Catholic" (from the Latin for "universal") Church, now would he?

Coulter is no less a performance artist than Lenny Bruce or Richard Pryor, only she's a blonde. [Insert blonde joke here.] In performance, Coulter is candid in an edgy way that strips off all "political correctness" -- and tact -- and pings on people's "PC" shell. It grates in the way that Don Rickles' act did, but further to the right and so close to the political jugular as to be scary.

Brinkmanship -- venturing out to the edge of the limb -- is part of the art, and there will be times when Coulter goes out too far and falls out of the tree. But until she takes to promoting a new Intifada, leading a latter-day Krystalnacht, or manning a Kassam launcher (a la Jane Fonda, 1972), I am not going to over-worry about what Ann Coulter says or does. Rather, I am going to re-evaluate the opacity and porosity of my own PC shell, and enjoy watching the other turtles in the pond react to the ping.

Who didn't know the fringe right hate machine would eventually get around to targeting Jews?

Coulter isn't a "performance artist," she's a bird dog.

Quite on topic is the just-concluded debate between Tariq Ramadan and Ibn Warraq on "We Should Not Be Reluctant to Assert the Superiority of Western Values".

Links to an mp3 of the debate and some good essays at David Thompson's place Check his comments, too.

Jim Rockford - all good points. The main problem Muslims will have to resolve - if they are to live up to the urgings of these scholars - is abandon their religious coercive absolutism.

Both Islam and Xty are, at base, absolutist, that is they both insist that their way alone is the way to eternal salvation (although in the last 100 years Western Xty has become much less insistent on that).

Islam's problem is that it has tied soteriological absolutism to political absolutism.

#6 from Jim Rockford at 7:07 am on Oct 12, 2007

You cannot possibly live in this constant state of terror.

There's a common but disreputable rhetorical trick, which is to argue as if everyone among the opponent group believes and supports everything that anyone in that group says, no matter how loopy.

Jim Rockford is a perfect example of this, here in [#6], but in pretty much everything he writes.

The complementary rhetorical trick is that if people on our side say something loopy and outrageous, well, it has to be understood in context, in a nuanced way, or as a kind of "performance art" that is to be appreciated as performance, but not subjected to actual evaluation.

Uncle Ralph's discussion of Ann Coulter [#7] is a perfect example of this one.

It's pretty obvious that any group encompasses a range of opinion, even if it's leaders are trying to enforce uniformity. Within that range, some speakers are just nut-cases, and can't be taken seriously, no matter how ferociously they might speak. (I would hope that Ann Coulter would be considered in this category.)

How we view and treat members of groups makes a real difference. This is especially true of they are our opponents.

If you want to unify Americans, it's best not to demonize people who disagree with you. You want them on your side in the long run, differences of opinion or not.

If you want to fight terrorists, you are much better off describing the terrorists as a dangerous but fringe criminal gang, to be pursued, captured, tried, and punished for their crimes against both us and humanity as a whole. Instead, we described OBL and al Qaeda as an existential threat to the United States (which is glorifying him far beyond the facts), strengthening his hand enormously. We described the effort to bring terrorists to justice as a "War", as if it were a conflict between equal state-like entities, which it is not.

In the case of this letter from Muslim clerics, we may be skeptical about how effective it will end up being, but why not welcome it as a move in the right direction? What's the down-side of encouraging that kind of response?

I'll tell you what the down-side is. If your enemy starts looking less unified, and less terrifying, then maybe you will not be able to get power and influence from fighting against that enemy. It's not in your political interest to have your enemy starting to look reasonable and human.

Slobodan Milosevic won great power in Serbia by fanning the flames of ethnic hatred, and inciting genocide. There's political power to be gotten from hatred. Signs of peace threaten that power, so they must be rejected ferociously and stamped out.

Osama bin Laden wants the USA to look hostile to all Muslims. Some folks on our side want all Islam to look hostile to the West. These guys are essentially allies, egging each other on to ever higher outrages, because they support their own power.

Watch the Muslim clerics who signed this letter be vilified and demonized by people on both sides with a vested interest in conflict.

The Christians and the Muslims share one very basic concept in common. Proselytizing. I would say a curse on both their houses for exhibiting this failing, but their Gods have been taking care of that for 1300 plus years by setting themselves against one another.

Two other things, to say that politics and religion have ever been separated in the Christian or Muslim world defies reality. And, before slapping ourselves on the back about being so enlightened in the Christian west, Our President has even made reference to having a sacred, God given mission to bring peace to the Middle East and both our Country and our Congress is rife with those who still do not accept the separation of Church and State.

As far as Ann Coulter is concerned, the American media has exploited mentally ill people like this for quite some time now, allowing them to fall more deeply into their lunacy by giving them a platform to parade their maladies. They do this with "ratings" in mind. All of the news channels these days appear to me to be like the sideshows at county fairs or in Times Square during the '50s, very little news, but a lot of two-headed cows, bearded ladies and "dog-boys".

Oh!, and don't forget the constant fear mongering.

#7 from Uncle Ralph at 7:47 am on Oct 12, 2007

"Performance Artist". OK, now I get it. I guess I should take what you wrote to be part of your comedy act?

I caught a lot of righteous heat on a Katzman holy thread for saying that "Religion is a curse on humanity." I was being "disrespectul" of his religious convictions by raising a point that is also the subject of this thread (albeit with a specific bias). Threats of banning, accusations of anti-semitism, the usual crap. But you'll note that I did not specify which particular religion.

Seems to me that many comments on this thread provide ample support for such a statement.

Both Islam and Xty are, at base, absolutist, that is they both insist that their way alone is the way to eternal salvation

Well isn't that true of most sects of Christianity as well? Not to mention a lot of other religions?

One problem with this particular bit of taqqiya; everyone knows that while a violently evangelistic Christian is a bad Christian, a violently evangelistic Moslem is exemplary. After all, it's in the Koran - in several places.

There will be peace between Moslems and Christians in one of two circumstances; either they grow up as Christianity did, and fast, or Moslems will know the peace of the grave - and their mass graves will be lethal to approach, for millennia, and their most unholy places will be glass-lined holes in the sand. Their choice.

The only regret I would have about the latter is they would have an honour guard in Hell, taken from those incinerated in the incident that causes their deaths.

AMac: text of the letter (and some gentle satire) available via elliott joseph.

You guys who are slavering for genocide (oh, so regretfully, of course!), are just setting yourself up to be manipulated by some terrorist who wants to use your rage to get someone else.

Beard, I generally agree with what you say, but I do think some context is in order.

AFAIK Coulter has no religious training, no religious credentials. It is not clear what, if any church she attends. (I believe she has indicated that she is a member of a Presbyterian church in NY though there appears to be no record of such)

OTOH, people like the Pope or Dr. Sheikh Salah Al-Sawy or Rev. Sensing have religious credentials and their statements about their religious faith are ones which I believe it would be fair to say reflect not mere personal idiosyncrasy, but accepted views within their religious community.

Coulter's statement makes no sense. If she believes that G*d's Covenant with the Jews has been superseded by Christianity, then she should read Romans 11:29 ("for God's gifts and his call are irrevocable") I'm not sure though if her statements reflect mere proselytizing, a special identification with the Jewish origins of Christianity or a perceived special mission to convert Jews. I suspect further investigation would probably be fruitless.

PD Shaw: I think we agree.

I've read enough of Coulter's writings to conclude that further attention is not warranted. The only mystery is why other people pay attention to her.

The others have and offer serious opinions. Agree or disagree, they are worth the time and effort of real discussion.

... calling for competition between Islam and Christianity " 'only in righteousness and good works.' "

Isn't the next logical step here for the Muslim clerics to call on their co-religionists to support charity, not terrorism and war against Israel?

But some Muslim "charity" is part of the problem, as in the recent case of the so-called Holy Land Foundation. Saudi-funded "charities" were used to force Wahhabism on Bosnian Muslims. And Hisb'allah finds it ridiculously easy to masquerade as a charity.

Muslim charity needs as much reforming as some of its non-charity.

If we are to all gather around a giant campfire and sing Kumbaya together, then some of us will have to sing, and others will have to laugh at the spectacle. Those are the only two activities allowed at Kumbaya circles, as all who have been to summer camp will remember. The Muslims will have a problem with this, because as Khomeini said "there is no humor in Islam", and as many Muslims have said, singing is forbidden in Islam (other than the call to prayer). So they won't be singing or laughing.

What will there be for them to do?

On to Coulter, as I noted on my blog Deutsch asked her leading questions about her personal beliefs repeatedly, and she gave the diplomatic answer several times then finally give him both barrels of truth, to which he took great umbrage. Oh the shock horror, a television host badgered a guest until the guest gave in and said something the host could dishonestly paint as a great offense, then refused to let her apologize her way out of it. She added to the mess by explaining her theological point very poorly.

Yet we all know that Christianity started as a Jewish sect. From the beginning it was an attempt to improve religion for Jews, while the outreach to gentiles happened later. Jesus taught that the Mosaic Laws are hard to follow, and offered a new covenant with a new Law (to believe in him, to love God, and to love thy neighbor as thyself) and new sacraments. Illuminated by those facts, Coulter's words are vaguely understandable, though phrases such as "perfected Jew" are risible.

My conclusion, Coulter is a better writer than speaker. Many humorists are, especially those of a satirical bent. And believe it or not she was actually flustered. That is a rare situation for Coulter.

Ann Coulter, a victim of the media? Please!

About three years ago I spent a couple of pages dissecting the first paragraph of her book "Treason". Calling her intellectually dishonest is too kind. The only way people can have a chance of defending her is as a "performance artist" whose words are divorced from their meanings. She purveys statements that anyone with her level of education must know are false, purely for shock value, as far as I can tell. Of course, she makes a very good living at it.

But as I said previously [#12 above] about Slobodan Milosevic, there are people who cultivate hatred as a path to personal power and influence. The fact that they succeed in their aim doesn't make it right. Quite the contrary.

Wolf, one of the purposes of such a gathering might be to dispense with the notion that Khomenei or Khomeneism is synonymous with Islam. Khomenei rejected key Shii' tradition of religous quietism to form a political movement inspired by Third-World Marxism.

Its this form of political Islam that can't abide humor. Someone who has observed the similarities btw/ Stalinism and Khomeneism, Milan Kundera, wrote earlier that "No great movement designed to change the world can bear to be laughed at or belittled, because laughter is the rust that corrodes every thing."

mullah cimoc say ann coulter dress slut and have big adam's apple but him donny deutsch the worse.

so obvious this the hit for rahm emmanuel and demo party against repub operative coulter.

him to pimping him religion. this the disgrace for any people of it book.

donny him eager to please him masters and get the acclaim. him whole life purpose to get the acclaim for the mental problem. so often when the man act this way him the traitor and having the sexual organ so small the woman to complaining evry day and never the peace. for this needing the acclaim. easy target for intel professional predator.

or maybe him just israeli agent? please for this information to prove.

"The human race has only one really effective weapon, and this is laughter." -Mark Twain

"Mark Twain was a great writer who was not above talking out of his ass on occasion." - Glen Wishard

[That is to say, if laughter were that effective, Hitler would have been undone by Charlie Chaplin, not Patton and Zhukov.]

"I can't find an English translation of the letter via Google, just the Reuters article cited. It would help to read the text of the letter itself."

I downloaded it from the link (link) at Jihad Watch (link).

I don't see how anyone who hasn't read the letter the thread is about has much useful to say in this thread.

"The determining factor will be the reception this letter gets among Muslim elites. Then we might move on to consider the rather forbidding points that David Blue has brought up on earlier threads."

Right. But since my views have evidently become familiar, let's turn to some details of the document.

This is a question for Christians and not for me: in footnote iv on the heart, on page 17, is the claim valid that is made that the Muslim conception of the (spiritual) heart, which concludes with "And I am not a keeper over you." is really not very different from the Christian conception of the (spiritual) heart as seen in the quotes given from the New Testament?

Because it's my understanding that here we see a difference between the Christian and Muslim conceptions of the relationship between divinity and humanity. In the Muslim conception, Allah does not live the disobedient. In the Christian conception, Jesus' love is seen as universal.

From my point of view, that is not an improvement, because the nature of Christian love. But: love, or no love: it's still a basic difference. Or it may be - as I said, this would be for Christians and of course Muslims to decide.

(My issues with the relationship between Islam and other religions lie elsewhere than with its dogma on "divine" religions.)

David Blue -

From the letter:

In Islam the (spiritual, not physical) heart is the organ of perception of spiritual and metaphysical knowledge.

Now, you ask, could you replace "Islam" with "Christianity" in that sentence? I suppose so, but you could also replace it with "19th Century Romantic Poetry" or "The Music of Olivia Newton John". The notion of the heart as a sensory or sentient organ is too common to base theological distinctions on. If it is metaphor, it's universal.

If it is being suggested that there exists a notion, in some version of Islam, that you can see God (spiritually) with your heart, and if there is any scrap of literal meaning in this, then there is no such notion in any standard version of Christianity. There is no basis in Christianity for the idea that God can be perceived through any human faculty, physical or otherwise. Knowledge of God is closely associated in Christianity with the presence of the Holy Spirit, and there Islam and Christianity part ways completely.

No Christian theologian or philosopher, that I know of, would agree with the idea that any metaphysical knowledge resides anywhere in the cardiovascular system.

I went and reread the article mentioned. I come away with the same dread I started with the first time. And 'David Blue' some of us do our research and you know, actually read the articles. I just read fast.

And unto thee have We revealed the Scripture with the truth, confirming whatever Scripture was before it, and a watcher over it. So judge between them by that which God hath revealed, and follow not their desires away from the truth which hath come unto thee.

This is in the last paragraph of the "letter". I interpret this to mean: "Okay kiddies, we have invited you to embrace Islam. Refuse at your own peril. You know the drill."

IOW, this is just a 1) prelude to war OR 2) hudna. Either one changes not one whit what I believe are the solutions to the problems of modern Islam or Islamofascism. The jihadis are the ones that declared the war. We tried not showing up for it but they were not taking "No" for an answer. (9-11 was the result)

That may make me whatever you want to label me as. It matters not.

I saw a great t-shirt at the gun show last weekend, "I am the infidel the immam warned you about..."

"I went and reread the article mentioned. I come away with the same dread I started with the first time. And 'David Blue' some of us do our research and you know, actually read the articles. I just read fast."

All this amateur comparative religion talk serves two purposes. It allows one to wrap the other group into a nicely ribboned package. And it keeps us from understanding who the enemy is and who isn't.

The religious "discussion" in foreign affairs obscures the fact that one should be interested in politics, primarily. Religion has always been the maidservant to political power serving as a means to control the politically disenfranchised.

The only purpose religion serves for us is as a tool to manipulate in order to gain our foreign policy objectives. Debates about whether or not Christianity is superior to Islam are just a waste of time. They go nowhere in changing the minds of the brainwashed on both sides. What would make anyone think that the self flagellating Shia are going to change their minds about the killing of Ali 1300 years ago because the west thinks they should?

The basic tenets in foreign policy, playing one government against the other because of political differences and using religion as one of the methods of achieving this is the only debate that is worthwhile here.

I would much rather have the situation we had before the invasion of Iraq, with no power vacuum in Baghdad than the situation we have today. In the immortal words of Chairman Deng. "I do not care if a cat is black or white as long as it catches mice." For all the debate about religion, the people in power in the Middle East, for the most part, are driven by good old fashioned self interest.

If we weren't driven by the naive Neo-Con, read Neo-Puritan, delusion of using our military power as a moral force (Talk about mixing religion with politics.), We would be much better off. I think we should eschew the missionary mentality. No one, especially in the Middle east, is at all interested.

P.S. As far as the communication between the Pope and the Muslim scholars, it come down to this. they are relevant only in relation to the number of hearts and minds that they can deliver. Whether one group is superior to the other or not is meaningless.

So cynical, TOC,

If a debate between the leaders of Christianity and Islam is "meaningless" then so is every other human activity.

Religion has always been the maidservant to political power serving as a means to control the politically disenfranchised.

Yeah, I read that book, too. But Marx died in 1883, and three days later, the son of a bitch was still dead.

The only purpose religion serves for us is as a tool to manipulate in order to gain our foreign policy objectives. Debates about whether or not Christianity is superior to Islam are just a waste of time. They go nowhere in changing the minds of the brainwashed on both sides.

Debates about how Christianity, Islam, secularism, and everything else can coexist peacefully in the modern world are not a waste of time, and opinions like yours are not exactly helpful in that regard.

The basic tenets in foreign policy, playing one government against the other because of political differences and using religion as one of the methods of achieving this is the only debate that is worthwhile here.

Those are indeed the basic tenets of 15th century foreign policy, but Machiavelli is dead, too.

I would much rather have the situation we had before the invasion of Iraq ...

Yawn. The situation you had, you mean.

In the immortal words of Chairman Deng. "I do not care if a cat is black or white as long as it catches mice."

The immortal words of Chairman Deng? Who are the mice, and what are you going to do with them when you catch them?

If we weren't driven by the naive Neo-Con, read Neo-Puritan, delusion of using our military power as a moral force (Talk about mixing religion with politics.)

I really get tired of telling this to people, but you don't have the slightest clue what a "Neo-Con" is. The only thing "Neo-Con" and religion have in common is that you do not understand either of them.

I think we should eschew the missionary mentality.

I think we should stop exporting water to the Martian colonies. But that's just what's going on in my imaginary world.

Robohobo:

And unto thee have We revealed the Scripture with the truth, confirming whatever Scripture was before it, and a watcher over it.

The basis of Islamic proselytizing is that Islam is the "Third Revelation" of Allah, replacing Christianity, which in turn replaced Judaism.

So the Muslim proselytizer says, "We are not saying that your religion is false. We honor your scriptures and your prophets. But Islam is the third installment of your religion, it's Return of the Jedi, it's God 3.0, and you need to upgrade now!"

There is a Christian analogue to this, which is so-called "Replacement Theology" - popular with Middle East Christians, many fundamentalists, and apparently a growing number of Anglicans. Replacement Theology holds that Christianity replaces Judaism, superseding God's covenant with Abraham.

This is a pernicious belief that basically puts relations between Jews and Christians back to the Middle Ages, which is exactly what many of the people who espouse it want to do.

In the instance cited above, Coulter appears to be advocating Replacement Theology. Rather ironic, since in Palestine the Replacers go hand in hand with the Islamic Jihadists.

I caught a lot of righteous heat on a Katzman holy thread for saying that "Religion is a curse on humanity." I was being "disrespectul" of his religious convictions by raising a point that is also the subject of this thread (albeit with a specific bias). Threats of banning, accusations of anti-semitism, the usual crap. But you'll note that I did not specify which particular religion.

Your "Religion is a curse on humanity" was the very first comment on Joe Katzman's benign post Rosh Hashanah 2007.

That the post was solely about a Jewish high holiday obviated the need for you to "specify which religion" you thought was a curse on humanity.

This reminds me of a story (fictional? future?) that was going the rounds some time ago. It might remind some of what the other side is risking if they don't decide to grow up and stop throwing lethal temper tantrums.

The story is:

Kid and his Granddad are walking through lower Manhattan in 2030. They come to a vacant lot and the Granddad stops and stares. The kid says "what's wrong Grandad?" Old man says "WTC stood here, until some Arabs knocked em down killing lots of people." The kid stares for a minute and says, "Grandpa... What's an Arab?"

#36 from Glen Wishard at 8:48 am on Oct 13, 2007

Nice exercise in name calling Glen. Why don't you try adding some substance next time. I am sorry I hit a nerve.

#35 from alphie at 8:36 am on Oct 13, 2007

So cynical, TOC,

If a debate between the leaders of Christianity and Islam is "meaningless" then so is every other human activity.
___________________________________________________
Where did I say this? I said the following:

"Debates about whether or not Christianity is superior to Islam are just a waste of time. They go nowhere in changing the minds of the brainwashed on both sides."

"As far as the communication between the Pope and the Muslim scholars, it come down to this. They are relevant only in relation to the number of hearts and minds that they can deliver. Whether one group is superior to the other or not is meaningless."

If we are interested in understanding what the differences are between two religions perhaps the best way is to look at the founders.

Compare and contrast Jesus and Mohammed.

One advocated turning the other cheek when slapped by others.
The other advocated and engaged in chopping off the others head.

Simplistic indeed and yet not all problems need to be analyzed too deeply. Islam is a barbaric religion when its followers follow the example of its leader.

#42 from PierreLegrand at 1:56 pm on Oct 13, 2007

If we are interested in understanding what the differences are between two religions perhaps the best way is to look at the founders.

Compare and contrast Jesus and Mohammed.

One advocated turning the other cheek when slapped by others.
The other advocated and engaged in chopping off the others head.

Simplistic indeed and yet not all problems need to be analyzed too deeply. Islam is a barbaric religion when its followers follow the example of its leader.
_____________________________________________

Perfect example of why this whole debate of whether Christianity is better than Islam is irrelevant in shaping a foreign policy. Why not go all the way and claim that God is on the Christians side.

U

Perfect example of why this whole debate of whether Christianity is better than Islam is irrelevant in shaping a foreign policy. Why not go all the way and claim that God is on the Christians side.

Because that isn't the point. We are trying to determine which of the two has violence as a central tenant of its philosophy. It may very well be that the more violent of the two religions is a "better" religion. We don't know what constitutes better in regards to religion.

The claim has been repeatedly made that we are not at war with Islam. That Islam is Peace. Answering the question regarding the founders examples puts those questions into a different light.

TOC -

I'm not calling you names, I'm telling you flatly that you don't know what you're talking about, whether it's religion or foreign policy. Above all, you don't know what this discussion is about, though you keep throwing cold water on it by claiming that it's about "whether Christianity is better than Islam".

You began your crusade by pronouncing a curse on Christian and Saracen alike, and you might have left off there because it's all you have to say on this subject.

David Blue, I can appreciate not wanting to waste time on the latest Coulter scandal, but as someone who wishes more Muslims would speak out when outrageous things are said on their behalf, honor dictates I speak out when Coulter says "hat is what Christians consider themselves: perfected Jews."

And if Glen is correct that she is expressing some form of replacement theology, then there is a certain added relevancy here. In Bat Ye'or's book, Islam and Dhimmitude, she traces how replacement theology influenced current expressions of dhimmi status. That would be one significant concern in any inter-faith dialogue, that the parties don’t resolve their differences by agreeing that Israel is wrong.

As to the actual letter, I read it yesterday. It is largely platitudes, which is what I would expect. Inter-faith dialogue demands starting with issues of agreement (something that seems not to matter to Robert Spencer). I would suggest that the number of parties be cut. If not, the Christians will spend their time fighting with each other over the significance to be attributed to "good works." The Pope seems to want mix it up, let the Vatican take the lead.

[from Glen Wishard at 8:50 pm on Oct 12, 2007]

You are getting to the core of my problem with this letter. As a Christian, I'm pretty much set with my understanding of "'only in righteousness and good
works." I would like to see their definition so that I know that both sides are talking apples.

Making sure everyone is on the same page right from the start is fundamental. I still have a problem with their definition of Peace and I'm not about to let that long phrase slip by without elaboration.

#44 from PierreLegrand: "The claim has been repeatedly made that we are not at war with Islam. That Islam is Peace. Answering the question regarding the founders examples puts those questions into a different light."

Leaders shape institutions. Founders shape insititutions fight down to the root. They stamp the imprint of their personalities and values on what is done, what is believed and how people feel about things - in what spirit do people act, or in what spirit do they need to talk to be fully credible and authoritative?

Also, when leaders make extreme claims about themselves that require assent and acive obedience, as both Muhammed (pbuh) and Jesus did, followers need to justify the odder and less pleasant acts of the "perfect" leaders. These rationales then remain for others to use.

Christianity is rich in justifications for doing the sorts of things Jesus did, such as speaking in parables that are unorthodox from a Jewish point of view, or associating with "sinners", or embracing a life of poverty and preaching. You will never get his followers all to knock this stuff off, no matter how much you may dislike preaching.

Islam is rich in justifications for doing the kinds of things Muhammed (pbuh) did. It is of supreme importance what kinds of things Muhammed (pbuh) did and justified.

Christianity does not innately need a justification for doing the sorts of things Muhammed (pbuh) did, and Islam does not innately need a justification for doing things that Christianity says Jesus did (like accepting crucifiction without resistance) but that Islam says Jesus did not do.

Both religions say there were some things only the leader could do - one thinks of Muhammed's unique dispensations to take extra wives. But that's only some things. There's vast fields of attitudes, beliefs and kinds of actions that permanently inspire admiration and a natural and sanctioned appetite for emulation.

Unless you think a permanent mandate to go and do like Muhammed (pbuh) is irrelevant, the lives of the leaders are very relevant.

If you don't think permanent mandate to go and do like Muhammed (pbuh) is relevant, I can only think you don't know enough about what he did, particularly the bits that are relevant to getting on with those who regard him as their leader and a perfect example to copy.

David Blue, I can appreciate not wanting to waste time on the latest Coulter scandal, but as someone who wishes more Muslims would speak out when outrageous things are said on their behalf, honor dictates I speak out when Coulter says "hat is what Christians consider themselves: perfected Jews."

Fair enough.

#44 from PierreLegrand at 7:05 pm on Oct 13, 2007

Because that isn't the point. We are trying to determine which of the two has violence as a central tenant of its philosophy. It may very well be that the more violent of the two religions is a "better" religion. We don't know what constitutes better in regards to religion.

The claim has been repeatedly made that we are not at war with Islam. That Islam is Peace. Answering the question regarding the founders examples puts those questions into a different light.
____________________________
The point is that we have a problem in Foreign Policy. A political problem. Overlaying it with this nonsense about religion just gets us away from dealing with the political problem. It might make you feel good to figure out which religion is violent at its core or which is peaceful or what which is better, but it does not address political issues, unless the Pope and the Islamic clerics can deliver the hearts and minds. Whether they can deliver politically.

Who could possibly care about the founders of the different religions if we find political solutions. This separation of Church and State is at the core of the Constitution for a reason. It seeks to avoid the fuzzy thought that often accompanies religious beliefs.

#45 from Glen Wishard at 7:49 pm on Oct 13, 2007

TOC -

I'm not calling you names, I'm telling you flatly that you don't know what you're talking about, whether it's religion or foreign policy.
________________________________

Thanks Glen, I wasn't aware of that. It is nice to have an absolute authority around to set me straight.
********************************
Above all, you don't know what this discussion is about, though you keep throwing cold water on it by claiming that it's about "whether Christianity is better than Islam".
________________________________
The discussion was about an approach that Muslim scholars Made to the Pope. then it turned. Look at Jim Rockford's post number 6. then
#10 from Donald Sensing at 4:52 pm on Oct 12, 2007

You began your crusade by pronouncing a curse on Christian and Saracen alike, and you might have left off there because it's all you have to say on this subject.
________________________________
#13 from TOC at 5:40 pm on Oct 12, 2007

The Christians and the Muslims share one very basic concept in common. Proselytizing. I would say a curse on both their houses for exhibiting this failing, but their Gods have been taking care of that for 1300 plus years by setting themselves against one another.
*******************************
I said I would (conditional)curse them for the failing of Proselytizing. But their own Gods have already taken care of that.

Please afford me the courtesy of actually reading what I write before you go off about what I don't know.
_________________________________

What is this post about
#17 from Fletcher Christian at 7:29 pm on Oct 12, 2007
*********************************

Do me a favor and try not to be so self righteous. It gets tedious.

Who could possibly care about the founders of the different religions if we find political solutions. This separation of Church and State is at the core of the Constitution for a reason. It seeks to avoid the fuzzy thought that often accompanies religious beliefs.

Fuzzy thought? No indeed not. It is fuzzy thought not to acknowledge that Islam is at its core from the beginning because of the example of its founder a violent religion. But it is more than that, it is a political system that depends on submission from not only its adherents but also those its adherents rule over.

These days we find ourselves telling all sorts of lies to each other to avoid facing the fact that we are in the Mother of all religious wars. The Constitution does not have anything to do with any of this except to outline how we wage war.

Christianity is rich in justifications for doing the sorts of things Jesus did, such as speaking in parables that are unorthodox from a Jewish point of view, or associating with "sinners", or embracing a life of poverty and preaching. You will never get his followers all to knock this stuff off, no matter how much you may dislike preaching.

Islam is rich in justifications for doing the kinds of things Muhammed (pbuh) did. It is of supreme importance what kinds of things Muhammed (pbuh) did and justified.

Say what?

Yea so then the press is rich with explanations of what Al Gore did and it is also rich with explanations of what Charles Manson did. Must mean that both of them are equal...

Jesus advocated feeding the poor.
Mohammed advocated stealing from everyone, then chopping their heads off and stealing their women.
Jesus preached love
Mohammed preached hatred

That they both preached makes them equal?

I said I would (conditional)curse them for the failing of Proselytizing. But their own Gods have already taken care of that.

I see. So you want to curse them, but find it redundant. Well, that's your point of view, but do you know what "proselytizing" is? In the broad and original sense it means to persuade someone to your point of view; in the narrower sense, to convert them to your religion.

How is this a "failing" that calls for divine cursing, unless you're a member of the Saudi religious police?

Maybe it's offensive to you that religions seek to recruit members, but a secular thought police that proposes to preside over the quarantine and elimination of religion is not more enlightened than any other kind of bigotry.

#53 from Glen Wishard at 2:31 am on Oct 14, 2007
TOC:

I said I would (conditional)curse them for the failing of Proselytizing. But their own Gods have already taken care of that.

I see. So you want to curse them, but find it redundant. Well, that's your point of view,
________________________________

Well, thanks for allowing me to have a point of view.
***************************************************

but do you know what "proselytizing" is? In the broad and original sense it means to persuade someone to your point of view; in the narrower sense, to convert them to your religion.
________________________________

Well I guess I do since your definitions make sense in the context of my sentence.
********************************
How is this a "failing" that calls for divine cursing,
________________________________
Well, Islam and Christianity driven by missionary zeal have been cursed with conflict for years.

********************************
unless you're a member of the Saudi religious police?
_______________________________
I have no idea what you are on about here.
********************************
Maybe it's offensive to you that religions seek to recruit members, but a secular thought police that proposes to preside over the quarantine and elimination of religion is not more enlightened than any other kind of bigotry.
___________________________________________

Well there is a good example of fuzzy thinking.
Why not keep this about politics rather than your religious beliefs.

I just think the whole path this religiosity takes the discussion gets in the way of rational debate. Is that criminal?

#51 TOC:

What is this post about?

What do you think will happen if and when Talibanesque lunatics get a nuke (to say nothing of possibly more than one?)

This is not a trivial point. Pakistan, for example, is edging closer and closer to having fundies running its government - and even if that never happens, plenty of people with access to WMD have sympathies with such people. Then of course you have Iran - OK, they are not Arabs before I am pulled up on it, but considering Islam is a basically Arab religion (its book is written in Arabic and no translation is considered authoratative)...

What will happen? They will use it, partly because they actually want Armageddon. Which is what they will get. The Western world is fed up with Muslim rage, Muslim intolerance and Muslim violence, on a large scale and a small, and also with Muslim expectations that social institutions (in countries with a majority of Non-Muslims) be altered to accomodate the minority.

I think that there is a strong thought in the collective mind of the West that "Enough is enough". When the Islamist nuke goes off, and nobody knows where it will be, then two things are likely to happen; a one-sided spasm war against the Arab countries in the Middle East, during which essentially the entire population of those countries will die, and a surge of anti-Islamic violence, mosque-burnings and so on in Western countries which the cops will be powerless to prevent - even supposing they want to.

It is worth noting here that even the British strategic force, probably the weakest of the nuclear powers, is quite capable of inflicting horrifying damage. If the initial strike is in France; given the general anti-Islamic feelings of the French, their government will be hard-pressed to avoid using their forces.

That is what my post meant. Answer good enough?

What will happen? They will use it, partly because they actually want Armageddon. Which is what they will get. The Western world is fed up with Muslim rage, Muslim intolerance and Muslim violence, on a large scale and a small, and also with Muslim expectations that social institutions (in countries with a majority of Non-Muslims) be altered to accomodate the minority.

Exactly. That is also why it is important to understand the roots of the rage of Islam. We delude ourselves when we declare that Islam is not a violent religion. It is a violent religion and it has always been so. Its founder was violent.

At least in Christainity the violence was exactly counter to the example set by the founder. Which meant that sooner or later it would be brought up short as it was. There is absolutely nothing in Islam that will bring the violence up short. Death is glorious...which leaves us with being forced to give glory to as many as wish to fight.

There is a Christian analogue to this, which is so-called "Replacement Theology" - popular with Middle East Christians, many fundamentalists, and apparently a growing number of Anglicans. Replacement Theology holds that Christianity replaces Judaism, superseding God's covenant with Abraham.

Really this is one of those silly wikipedia definitions that comes up from competing editors who generally have a bias. All context left out.

Catholicism and mainstream Protestantism are 100% replacement theology...as is Judaism itself.

There is lip service in Catholicism and Protestantism to the effect that it isn't but you have to throw out the entire core of the religion itself, and all of the theology.

All monotheism is by its nature replacement theology. there isn't a single element in Judaism that doesn't come from somewhere else. Since we know the convent myth itself is adapted to Judaism. All religions are successors. They all have been born of delegitimizing the orthodoxies of the prior religion/s from which they sprang with new orthodoxies.

Also proselytizing is given an over pejorative portrayal here. Prostelitizing vs tolerance is one thing, but we are leaving out the third variant here, the other extreme -- exclusion or religons affiliated with ethnicity.

Yes, Christ was not like Mohammad, but the early patriarchs of Monotheism were more like Mohammad than they were like Christ.

So there is simply nothing inherently more or less tolerant within any monotheistic religion. So to lay the blame on "Islam" creates a problem since every monotheistic religion went through orgies of violence, justified by that religion. So it is a question of leadership and how a religious leadership (clerical and lay) defines its relations, and sets the tone. There are intolerant Christian leaders ( a minority), Christians using Christianity to justify violence ( a tiny minority), intolerant Jewish leaders (a minority), Jews using religion to justify violence (a tiny minority).

The problem is the leadership within Islam where intolerance is much broader and advocacy of violence much more prevalent.

Catholicism and mainstream Protestantism are 100% replacement theology...as is Judaism itself ... All monotheism is by its nature replacement theology.

No, Noam, you are obscuring a specific problem with this broad generalization.

By Replacement Theology, we mean a specific movement among some Christians, which is firmly rejected by other Christians, which has the effect (and sometimes the explicit aim) of invalidating Judaism.

More to the point, it fosters the political objective of a crusade against the Jews of Israel, in which the jihadists have unfortunately recruited a host of Christian and Pagan allies.

Not everyone who follows this doctrine is an anti-Semite or a hater of Israel; some of them are just wrong.

To repeat, this is a specific problem that needs to brought into focus, not washed away in the general bath of "everybody does it".

#55 from Fletcher Christian at 2:34 pm on Oct 14, 2007

Great example of what I have been saying, an all-over-the-place rant. Do you expect anyone to be able to follow this. This is what you see as passing for a discussion:

This is is not a trivial point. Pakistan, for example, is edging closer and closer to having fundies running its government - and even if that never happens, plenty of people with access to WMD have sympathies with such people. Then of course you have Iran - OK, they are not Arabs before I am pulled up on it, but considering Islam is a basically Arab religion (its book is written in Arabic and no translation is considered authoratative)..
****************************
As far as the following stuff goes, it comes right out of the dominion Wars on Deep Space 9.
............................
I think that there is a strong thought in the collective mind of the West that "Enough is enough". When the Islamist nuke goes off, and nobody knows where it will be, then two things are likely to happen; a one-sided spasm war against the Arab countries in the Middle East, during which essentially the entire population of those countries will die, and a surge of anti-Islamic violence, mosque-burnings and so on in Western countries which the cops will be powerless to prevent - even supposing they want to.
*******************************
You really have to be kidding.

The problem is the leadership within Islam where intolerance is much broader and advocacy of violence much more prevalent.

The Leadership in Islam is more intolerant because of the example set by the founder. There is nothing to hold them back.

#59 TOC:

I think I was clear. I can live, easily, with the thought that you can't follow what I said. You've obviously bought the "religion of peace" bullshit. Islam does not mean "peace" - it means "submission". If Islam changes to being non-violent then it won't be Islam any more.

Let's make it simple. More Islam = bad. Less Islam = good. No Islam = even better - one less way for humanity to lose civilisation (permanently).

And if they don't shape up, no Islam is what we are going to get. And I won't spend a minute worrying about it.

Gee! I had no idea things were that bad!!! Listen, Solemn High Potentate, Giver of Life and Death, True Seeker of the Way, Knower of Eternal Truth, Sword of the Almighty, Do I die along with the rest of the infidels or do you let me go to a re-education camp?

Meanwhile, I have had enough. But do me one favor. Keep religion out of politics. It only confuses the issue. And as you last rant shows, it brings out the lesser Angels of your nature.

OK, let's ask a simple question: for the purposes of the Islamic quotes used in this document, who was originally (in context) and who is today your neighbor?

David Blue -

I don't understand your question.

"David Blue - I don't understand your question."

Muhammed (pbuh) urged Muslims to care for their fellow Muslims and be hard against the kuffer. Don't take unbelievers to be your friends, except to guard yourselves against them. And so on. This is Islam. It's in the Koran, though I'm not getting into the full chapter and verse now.

So, your neighbors are your fellow Muslims, not those who incur the wrath of Allah or those who go astray (Jews and Christians), even though Christianity and Judaism count as "divine religions". Still less are your neighbors followers of the "man-made religions" that offend Allah so badly - idol-worshiping and all that stuff.

When Muhammed urged Muslims to act in brotherly ways, he meant, and was understood by his fellow Muslims to mean, towards fellow Muslims.

That was normative Islam then and it's normative Islam now.

Just being nearby physically didn't cut it. And it still doesn't today.

-

Islam is full of things that seem to offer safety for and good conduct towards (some) non-Muslims, but which have to be understood properly, in context, otherwise when you encounter what they really mean, it will be too late to save yourself you might end up feeling betrayed.

The Muslims who took the gunpoint conversions of Steve Centanni and Olaf Wiig quoted their holy text on "no compulsion in religion" because they were complying with it: they were applying it the same way Muhammed (pbuh) did, who also obtained many converts through terror. The text does not mean what naive non-Muslims assume it means. (And Muslims since Muhammed (phuh) himself typically have exploited rather than cleared up this natural confusion.)

-

Two key concepts in the document we are discussing are the unity of God and love of one's neighbor. Both are terms of art in Islam. (And frankly the "oneness" of God is very much a term of art in Christianity too.)

I preferred to home in on the term with the greatest practical implications and the least chance of derailing the thread into a discussion of the Holy Trinity etc..

-

My point is: in a dialog where one side doesn't think of any meaning for certain key terms except a natural and benevolent one, and the other side is always using terms of art, like "peace" to indicate expansion, by force of arms if need be, of the House of Islam at the expense of the House of War - it's an unequal discussion.

Do you see the one-sided advantage in a universal "love thy neighbor!" where one side takes this to require letting down it's guard and treating everyone as a neighbor, and the other side, not clearing up this confusion, hews to a special meaning of term "neighbor" that implies "solidarity for us and subjugation for you"?

If you want "love thy neighbor" for real, you have to start by acknowledging and clearing up problems like this. There is no hint of acknowledging such problems in the document we are discussing.

-

Maintaining and exploiting confusion is not the same thing as honestly avoiding contentious issues and focusing on what people really do agree on, which is what this document claims to be about.

It has a lot of commendable qualities, but not honesty about Islam and Islam's relationship to non-Muslims.

There is another issue possibly contained in the question "who is today your neighbor?"

According to this excellent document, to avert war, a war they cannot win as it would be mutually destructive, it's necessary for Christians to live up to the ideals of recognition of the oneness of God and of love of the neighbor, in both cases as defined by Islam.

This doesn't mean that Muslims will be practicing "love of the neighbor" according to your understanding of it. Muslims should live up to the words of Muhammed (pbuh) that "None of you has faith until you love for your brother what you love for yourself." according to an Islamic understanding of who their brothers are.

I've dealt with that.

The other possible problem would be that you also don't get to live up to the ideal of "love of the neighbor" according to your own understanding of it, unless that understanding complies with Islamic views.

The neighbor that you are obliged to be good to certainly is the good Muslim, the Muslim in good standing. That's not optional, that's compulsory.

At the same time, many people that you may have thought were your neighbors, who you could and should be in solidarity with, cease to be your neighbors. You must not raise a hand to help them. You must live out a story that goes like this: they came for the Israelis, and I did nothing because I am not an Israeli. They came for the Hindus, and I did nothing because I am not a Hindu.

This offer of peace is only for the Christian world, and only if it practices certain virtues on Islamic terms. It is not a universal offer, and given the nature of the Islamic system, it can't be.

I say this is only another possible problem, because the way Ayaan Hirsi Ali is being treated, and the way many other less prominent people have been treated, shows that for a lot of people that's not a problem.

If that's someone's attitude, then the value of mateship is dead in them, and they will live if at all by mercy not by mateship, through submission not through solidarity. It is a fundamental decision about who you want to be and what conflicts you are willing to accept rather than be something else.

All that said: people had better think very seriously about this offer, because it concedes all that Islam can concede, and we are not going to get anything better.

Thanks to Little Greeen Footballs (link) I see that Michelle Phillips has correctly identified another problem (link).

But I have to say again that we should consider this offer seriously because I don't think a better one is possible. This is how the system works - on its most kindly days.

Dave,

I think you meant Melanie Phillips. Michelle Phillips was a singer with the Mamas & the Papas and about whom I had many wonderful fantasies.

David Blue -

Take a look at the section beginning on page 4, entitled The Common Word Between Us and You.

The authors here argue that Christianity and Islam share the two greatest commandments: 1) Love God, and 2) Love your fellow man.

No one doubts that they love Allah, but "Love of God in Islam" goes on for a full four and half pages. "Love of the Neighbour in Islam", on the other hand, barely takes up half a page. It features two quotes from the Koran, only one of which is specific:

... and giveth wealth, for love of Him, to kinsfolk and orphans and the needy and the wayfarer and to those who ask, and to set slaves free; and observeth proper worship and payeth the poor-due.

Now it is no sacrifice for any religion, or for an atheist, to award this kind of love to widows, orphans, and beggars. These people are not the equals of the charity-giver, and pose no threat to him whatsoever.

[As an example of the kind of charity described here: When Saladin took Jerusalem, the Christian inhabitants were enslaved. Saladin purchased a number of these slaves and freed them, as an act of gratitude to Allah for his victory. He does not seem to have felt any love for these Christians, because he only refrained from massacring them when the Crusaders threatened retaliation.]

Christ, on the other hand, enjoined his followers to love not only their inferiors - the beggars, the whores, and the tax-collectors - but to love those in power over them, like the Roman who beats you with the scourge.

Allah is identified with mercy, not love - it's easy to "love" those who submit to your superior power. Acting with love and charity towards those who will not submit to you is the problem.

The authors are very confident in explaining Christ to Christians, but they're missing something here.

mark -

ROTF...

A.L.

Re: #69 from mark: you are right, I meant Melanie Phillips.

Melanie as in "Lay Down (Candles in the Rain)" + Phillips as in "California Dreaming" = Melanie Phillips.

#69 from mark at 6:01 pm on Oct 15, 2007
Dave,

I think you meant Melanie Phillips. Michelle Phillips was a singer with the Mamas & the Papas and about whom I had many wonderful fantasies.
*************************************

Who didn't!?!?!?!!!!!!

"David Blue -

Take a look at the section beginning on page 4, entitled The Common Word Between Us and You.

The authors here argue that Christianity and Islam share the two greatest commandments: 1) Love God, and 2) Love your fellow man."

Page 4: A COMMON WORD BETWEEN US AND YOU, got it.

"The central creed of Islam consists of the two testimonies of faith or Shahadahsi, which state that: There is no god but God, Muhammad is the messenger of God. These Two Testimonies are the sine qua non of Islam. He or she who testifies to them is a Muslim; he or she who denies them is not a Muslim. Moreover, the Prophet Muhammad. said: The best remembrance is: ‘There is no god but God’…."

Which firmly defines an "us vs. them" based on Two Testimonies.

That would appear to be not what Jesus said, but I'm trying hard not to potentially get into an argument with Christians about what Jesus really meant on any topic.

(If only because if you let yourself be drawn into something like that, the next Christian comment might be something like this: since you've commented on the interpretation of our scripture, you won't mind if I tell you the true interpretation of yours: this "hidden" or "unknown" god of whom your ancient teachers speak is Jesus etc..)

Anyway, Glen Wishard, I'm not disagreeing with your quantitative point. My point is not about how much emphasis on love, but who gets this love?

"News that the head of Indonesia's anti-terror unit, Surya Dharma, hosted 20 convicted terrorists and released Muslim radicals late last month emerged yesterday, with an Associated Press report and photographs from a journalist who attended the Muslim fast-breaking party.

Guests included Ali Imron and Mubarok, who received life sentences for their roles in the first Bali bombings, which took the lives of 202 people including 88 Australians.

Brigadier-General Dharma said the gathering was part of a strategy to win over terrorists.

"We approach the terrorists with a pure heart," he said. "We are all Muslims. We make them our brothers, not our enemy.""

They are indeed all Muslims, and brotherhood does indeed follow, at least as an ideal. As for the victims they were outside the the magic line of "us vs. them".

It's a different concept of "love of the neighbor", and I think the most important difference is not the weight attached to the whole concept in relation to the Two Testimonies, as indicated by the quantity of discussion, even though that's a perfectly valid point; I think the key thing to notice is who gets to be the neighbor, who gets the love, and who doesn't.

Abdul Rahman doesn't (unless he repents); Hirsi Ali doesn't, Salaman Rushdie doesn't, and so on.

But Osama Bin Laden, for example does: he upholds the Two Testimonies (and generally confirms every essential article of faith), so he is a Muslim.

That's where the "us vs. them" line is drawn.

And ultimately this is about drawing an "us vs. them" line, with those that Muslims are in solidarity with on one side of it and those that they are hard against on the other side of it.

Confusion on this is dangerous, yet the article we are commenting on does nothing to removes such confusion.

Re: #70 from Glen Wishard: I just want to say again I think you made excellent points in that post.

I believe the "neighbor" in Islam is roughly that group with which one lives in close proximity, who is not kin. But I don’t think the concept of "neighbor" is the primary issue. Christians are told not merely love their neighbor, but to love their enemy.

The Fourth Sura states:

Be kind to parents, and the near kinsman, and to orphans, and to the needy and to the neighbour who is of kin, and to the neighbour who is a stranger, and to the companion at your side, and to the traveler, and to that your right hand owns.

I am not sure the Koran contains an actual requirement that one love one’s neighbour, as opposed to be good/kind to one’s neighbour. There are other requirements about being good to strangers, which appears to be common in the near East.

The Torah states "Do not hate your brother in your heart. Rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in his guilt. Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself." Here, love of neighbor is not inconsistent with rebuke. Love is acted through the prism of a moral universe. If someone I love asks for a drink which I believe will do them harm, there are two types of love at issue. One gives what is asked without reservation. The other seeks to do what is best. I believe religious love is the second.

Christians and Muslims have similar concepts. In Islam, there is a body of thought concerned with forbidding wrong, and determining in what circumstances different types of responses are due when one’s neighbour is drinking. Christianity has Aquinas’ thoughts on the fraternal obligations to condemn a neighbour’s foibles. It is my general impression that Islam expresses these issues in terms of a just society and Christianity in terms of love.

Which is a long way of saying, what do you mean by love? Later in the Fourth Surah, one can find death sentences doled out to people who revert back to their original religion after embracing Islam. Is that love? Hard love? Are we concerned about what is best for the offender or society?

Its quite possible that the demarcation point is between love and justice. For Muslims to be reaching out in the language of love to me is a form of concession. Details to follow.

Re: #76 from PD Shaw: this does not meet my key point: the difference in status between Muslim and non-Muslim.

Since we're now in effect Koran-blogging, I'll defer to an expert rather than doing my own interpretations.

I pointed to one statement from the Koran before, Surah 5, verse 51, in which Allah forbids Muslims from having Jews and Christians as friends. I think that ought to be persuasive that proximity without mention of what religion the nearby person adheres to does not tell the tale.

Here is expert commentary on that part of the Koran: (link).

The key point in the letter (see #65) really is that of the ‘unity’ of God. For Muslims this word is probably either 'wahid' or 'tawhid,' (can't find an arabic version, and my arabic is pretty basic anyway) which refers to an absolute oneness of person, rather than the oneness of substance or essence, which is the Christian understanding of God's nature.

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 People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya [a tribute or tax permitting the non-Muslim to continue in his beliefs] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. Sura 9:29

Oh, and by the way, it’s a crime to proselytise. Yeah, we can have world harmony alright, provided we agree to be dimam.

Unless the signers are known to be moderate theologians and leaders, they probably assign a very different meaning to their words than we would normally think they mean. That's always risky.

Muslims cannot talk themselves out of something they continue to behave themselves into -- just as they've done for the last 1300 years or so. Time for a quick (non-exhaustive) tour. Let’s start in the Philipines.

Philippines: Muslims attack Catholics
Indonesia: Muslims attack Hindus
Thailand: Muslims attack Buddhists
India: Muslims attack Hindus and Sikhs
Iran: Muslims attack Baha’is
Israel: Muslims attack Jews
Ethiopia: Muslims attack Copts
Sudan: Muslims attack Anglicans and animists
Chad: Muslims attack Catholics
Cameroun: Muslims attack Catholics
Nigeria: Muslims attack Anglicans
Spain: Muslims attack Catholics
France: Muslims attack Jews
Bosnia: Muslims attack Orthodox
Russia: Muslims attack Orthodox
Chechnya: Muslims attack Orthodox
China: Muslims attack Atheists
... which brings us back to the Philippines.

Can we accept this constitutes an irrefutable pattern of behavior?

Oh, but it’s all about the Palestinians, and if we got out of Iraq they wouldn’t hate us. They say. Is that just ignorant, or is it maliciously ignorant. Form your own opinion.

Nevertheless, "by their fruit shall you know them."

No, I don’t trust them. And, No, I don’t feel the slightest bit guilty about that. That said, I'll continue to treat individuals decently and even warmly (I have a Jordanian grocer) until they give me a reason to do otherwise. 'Salaam aleikum.'

We should not, however, conflate individual relationships and global geopolitics.

"I am the infidel the immam warned you about..."

I want that t-shirt!

I'm blocking myself from blogging until december... I'm just too busy. But I hightly recommend the conversation going on at slate about rules in the old deal and the new testament.

What does it have to do with this conversation? Not much really. But it has some tangentially interesting points about the nature & patterns of religion, and how they deeply affect the mindset of believers (and the views of outsiders).

Just wanted to drop off food for thought.