Wall Street Opinion Journal JAMES TARANTO Thursday, May 5, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT
Secular liberals show open contempt for traditionalists.
I am not a Christian, or even a religious believer, and my opinions on social issues are decidedly middle-of-the-road. So why do I find myself rooting for the “religious right”? I suppose it is because I am put off by self-righteousness, closed-mindedness, and contempt for democracy and pluralism–all of which characterize the opposition to the religious right.
One can disagree with religious conservatives on abortion, gay rights, school prayer, creationism and any number of other issues, and still recognize that they have good reason to feel disfranchised. This isn’t the same as the oft-heard complaint of “anti-Christian bigotry,” which is at best imprecise, since American Christians are all over the map politically. But those who hold traditionalist views have been shut out of the democratic process by a series of court decisions that, based on constitutional reasoning ranging from plausible to ludicrous, declared the preferred policies of the secular left the law of the land.
For the most part, the religious right has responded in good civic-minded fashion: by organizing, becoming politically active, and supporting like-minded candidates. This has required exquisite discipline and patience, since changing court-imposed policies entails first changing the courts, a process that can take decades. Even then, “conservative” judges are not about to impose conservative policies; the best the religious right can hope for is the opportunity to make its case through ordinary democratic means.
Note 44. Islamic terror target all non-Muslims
Dean talks about “reconciliation.” Reconciliation between whom? Christians and Muslims? Let us assume for the sake of argument that somehow all Muslims and all Christians know live in total harmony with each other.
How would Dean resolve.
A) attacks against Buddhists in Thailand. The Buddhist Thais have no record of colonialism in Muslim lands and no Crusades. How come they are under attack from Muslim terrorists?
B) attacks against Chinese atheists or Confucians. The Chinese Confucians have not record of colonialism in Muslim lands and no Crusades. How come they are under attack from Muslim terrorists?
Dean has consistently resisted acknolweding that there exists a world wide war of Islam against non-Muslims. Please note the following:
A) Nigeria Christians live in fear of their Islamic co-countryman
B) Sudan is a jihadi campaign
C) Chechnya rebels are inspired and motivated by Islam
D) Muslims terrorists operate in southwestern China in attacks against non-Muslim Chinese
E)Jihadi camps and literature have been found in Central and South America
G) Muslims in Britain openly call for jihad against Britain and the West
H) Pakistan is still engaging in terror against non-Muslim Kashirmis and other Indians
I) Muslim terrorists control substantial parts of the Phillipines
J) Al-Zawqhari calls for JIHAD in Iraq and organizes killing sprees against totally innocent random Iraqis because he can’t fight the American Army directly.
K) American Islamic schools have been found to teach deeply anti-American ideas to their Isalmic pupils. Northern Virginia has a cluth of jihadi schools.
L) Persons who criticize Islam in Europe live in justified fear of their lives.
Islam is the only ethnic or religious group that TODAY in engaged in a world wide campaign of TERROR. Dean sitting in his library decides that as an academic matter, this cannot be described as JIHAD. I am so relieved.
Note 44 Dean’s conclusion about the “true nature” of Islam are of no import.
Let us assume that Dean and I spent two decades with a bunch of musty medieval Muslim books and concluded that according to correct Muslim theology, no jihadi violence is justified.
Exactly how would that benefit the world, Dean? You have to stuck your head in the sand, like the world’s biggest ostrich, while thousands (if not millions) of Muslims gleefully murder non-Muslims in the name of Islam.
Who cares what your Muslim theological conclusion is? Bin Laden states that he is doing the work of Islam. Who are you to argue? Who cares what your theological conclusion is? Go find Bin Laden and tap him on the shoulder Dean, let him know what the score is. Sad how Islam is misunderstood.
As I said Dean time for you to venture into the Muslim world and tell them your ideas about jihad and respect for women and respect for non-Muslims.
Go ahead, but, don’t forget to take a large bodyguard with you.
When I will “reconcile” with Islam
I will reconcile with Islam when:
A) Muslims repudiate that section of the Koran that calls Christian and Hebrew Scriputres corrupted
B) Muslims repudiate that section of the Koran that states that men are superior to women and are entitled to “sourge” them (Yusuf Ali translation)
C) Muslims repudiate that section of the Koran that states that Allah does not approve a Muslim being subject to the direction, command or orders of a non-Muslim
D) Muslims repudiate that section of the Koran that dictates that women receive
half the inheritance of men
E) Muslims repudiate that section of the Koran which states that women’s testimony is worth less than that of men
F) Muslims repudiate any Koran of sharia laws which calls for capital punishment
or amputation or stoning as punishment of crimes
G) Muslims ACTUALLY STOP the practice of capital punishment, amputation and stoniny as carried on in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan and manh other places
H) Muslims give full religious freedom to their own people and to non-Muslims.
I) Muslims renounce and repudiate polygamy
J) Muslims renounce and repudiate that that the sexual abuse of children is acceptabel as in the case of 6 year old Aisha. Two references to her age of 9 at consummation of her marriage to Mohammed in the Bukhari Hadith.
K) Renunciation of the killings, murders, tortures and rapes performed personally by Mohammed and overseen by Mohammed.
L) Compensation to Copts in Egypt for centuries of mistreatment and discrimination.
M) Renunciation and cessation of wars of Islam against the non-Islamic world carried on in Nigeria, Sudan, Kenya, Thailand, Indonesia, Phillipines, East Timor, Malaysia, China, Russia and elsewhere
N) Dismantlement of thousands of madrassas all over the world which preach hate of non-Muslims
O) Renunciation of the teaching of Mohammed that women are intellectually deficient. He had a lot of nerve given that he was illiterate in a literate
society.
P) Compensation for all Christian and Jews living in the Middle East and other currently Muslim majority countries.
That is just for starters. I may think of more.
Note 49. The solution to the abortion problem lies in the transformation of the hearts and minds of people. There is a lot of moral confusion about the issue that leads to much tacit consent, but this consent moves toward the pro-life side once people grasp the full import of abortion. One of the most influential groups contributing to this shift are women who have had abortions and are now pro-life.
Working to appoint morally sound judges, as well as circumscribing the powers some of them have assumed, is entirely appropriate. That’s the American way. In broad terms the cultural left depends on the judiciary for rulings they could never win through legislative assemblies while the cultural right (note: not “religious right” which in Dean’s reasoning really functions as a caricature) resists this. These kinds of debates are how moral problems are ajudicated in American culture. It’s messy and fractious at times, but that’s how it’s done.
As for the Baptist preacher and his church, let the people vote with their feet. They’ve been doing it in the mainstream churches for years. The noise in that Baptist church is nothing more than a local subset of the larger cultural debate. There is no need to read anything more into it.
Jim, I don’t know of any Orthodox who have been ask to leave a parish because of their abortion views, but I do know that my parish priest has explicitly said that if you support abortion you cannot approach the cup and receive communion. Since the act and reality of communion is the core of the Orthodox way of life, they are in effect excluded from the fullness of the Church.
They still have the opportunity to pray and come to repentence, but they are not fully Orthodox.
I suspect there are more than just my priest who approach it that way.
Note 27: Glen implies that as long as one is charging Protestants with being “prostitutes”,
“bigots”, “fascists”, “anti-intellectuals”, “liars”, “indifferent to suffering”, “dangerous paranoids”, “slanderers” and “theocrats” who spit in the face of Jesus Christ, then that is OK. But if one is to include Catholics and Orthodox, then that would be over the top.
I hate to tell you this, Glen, but just your opposition to same-sex “marriage” and abortion on demand, makes you part of what the Left characterizes as the religious right. I you might not define religious right in this manner, but they do.
So you can let the slanders stand when they are made against those you dislike, but you are lying to yourself if you think you’re are not part of those being attacked.
I think we can more clearly delineate the differences between the “Religious Right” and other people of faith by looking not at what their common professed beliefs are (there may be many) but what seems to be their core motivation. The Religious Right seeks less to establish the Kingdom of God on Earth through charity, justice and peace than to gain political power and money for its own sake while using religious language to obtain it. I am aware of organizations in my hometown that provide financial assistance, housing and counseling to women considering abortion. They have succeeded in many pregnancies being carried to term that otherwise would not have been. Such groups do NOT, in my opinion, fall into what I consider the “Religious Right”.
On the flip side, look at the lives of some in the “Family Values” crowd. Yes, they can yammer loudly about how important families are, but what’s the first thing these politicans or commentators (such as Dr. Laura, Pete Knight, Randall Terry and Alan Keyes) do when a family member disappoints them? Why, disown them and never speak to them again!
Some less charitable Christians have concluded that people like Mrs. Schlessinger are simply hypocrites. Hardly a novel or particularly insightful observation. Nevertheless, this accusation seemed well-aimed once Mrs. Schlessinger used the horrific murder and neglect of her mother as an opportunity to publicly lament over what a vile woman her mother had been, unseemingly gloat about what a fabulous mother Laura is, and issue the chillingly cold observation that her mother had “died as she chose to live, alone and isolated.” Charming!
I could go on about Pat Robertson’s diamond mines but I think you get the picture.
JamesK: Religious Rights are Just People You Don’t Like
JamesK. All you have really said is that the “religious right” are people you don’t like or approve of. I don’t think “religious right” is a very useful term.
Daniel,
As a social and fiscal conservative, I have no illusions about being despised by many Democrats. Which is why, of course, I don’t associate with them. Despite the fact that many Democrats are against the war in Iraq, I have never sought any common ground on this topic. Why? Because the anti-war Democrats were vehemently pro-war when it came to killing Serbs. Aside from the fact that we find ourselves on the same side against the conflict in Iraq, for vastly different reasons, there simply isn’t enough commonality of belief between me and most (not all) Democrats to ever entice me into believing that my social conservatism doesn’t put me square in their gunsights.
Just because I disagree with most ‘Democratic’ issues, doesn’t mean, however, that a Democrat is never right. I actually worked for the Christian Coalition. I am familiar with that organization from the bottom up. Is everything the group stands for wrong? No, absolutely not. The CC holds solid positions on a number of issues. As does the Eagle Forum, and a good number of other groups normally associated with the ‘Religious Right.’
However, as I said previously, many of these Protestant groups have significant Theological and political flaws. I have pointed some of them out previously, and could point out more at this time. Not the least of their sins is a kind of cult of personality that centers around the person of the founder. (A problem shared by Randian libertarians, among others, who are not religious in the Theistic sense.)
The Social Left in the U.S. (as defined by abortion and homosexual marriage) would probably consider my views and those of Jerry Falwell to be the same, since they coincide on the only two issues that they seem to really care about. However, such an indentification would be erroneous, as the dear Reverend and I differ on a great deal of issues, not the least of which is the $8 billion a year in subsidies the U.S. sends to Israel. (I oppose all foreign aid.) I can take the social Left’s identification of me with Falwell, Hagee, and others and circle the wagons to fight a common enemy. In that case, I lose the distinctiveness of my own beliefs and allow my enemy to define me.
Or, I can agree with the social left when their criticisms are valid, and thereby preserve my own objectivity. This, however, leads others to identify me with the social left.
People seem to have too much loyalty to a ‘team’ these days. Dean is on the other ‘team’ so whatever he says must be wrong. Someone on my ‘team’ has to always be defended, even when they might actually be wrong.
Tom DeLay is an example of this. His behavior in paying his family huge salaries out of campaign money is an abomination. Yet, many Republicans are defending him. Yes, many, many Democrats have behaved even worse. So say that. “Tom DeLay exercised poor ethics and poor judgment. Other members of Congress have behaved even worse. The whole Augean stables need to be cleaned out, and the rules tightened to end influence peddling of this sort!!!”
But that isn’t how the script goes. They attack our side, and we shoot back that their side is even worse. Then we all fight over it, trying to prove that the other guy is a bigger snake. Sometimes, both sides are full of vipers. I just don’t care to play that game. If the criticism is valid, I see no reason to try and refute it. Robertson, Falwell, Hagee, and Dobson, among others, have gotten rich and powerful by selling out their constituency and by trading on the name of Jesus Christ. This isn’t confined to them, of course, the ‘left’ has had its share of demagogues. Woodrow Wilson immediately comes to mind in that regard, but Martin Luther King and Jesse Jackson aren’t far behind.
I care about issues, not sides. The loosely defined ‘Religious Right’ have been hard at work since the 70’s and have gotten exactly nowhere on abortion. In the midst of all their activity, the situation has actually declined. In 1973, gay marriage would have been a joke of some kind, rather than a real possibility. The same is true of much of our curriculum in the schools. If they have been winning elections and increasing the wealth and power of their founders/officers, yet nothing is changing, then something must be wrong. I think that what is wrong is intricately bound-up with the limitations of Protestant Christianity, and that those limitations make working within the framework of the Christian Coalition an exercise in futility. Dean probably thinks that the actual message of the ‘Religious Right’ is the problem. He and I may agree in our disdain for certain groups, but we come at this thing from entirely different angles.
Reconciliation with Islam appropriate when Islam undergoes self-examination
Dean, the Hadith quote Mohammed as describing Islam as “the perfect religion” and Muslims as the “best people.” The Koran expressly states that Muslims should NEVER accept the domination of a non-Muslim. This last rule has many applications. It can mean that a Muslim should not work for a non-Muslim in a private business. It also means that a Muslim should never have to report to a non-Muslim government official.
The West and Christianity has undergone intense self-examination. Islam has undergone NOTHING OF THE SORT. Islam does not recognize that the early career of Mohammed was that of a conquerer. Islam does not recognize rights of non-Muslims to political and social equality in their societies, but, demands it from other non-Muslim societies. Islam has NOT acknowledged that its severely failed states are the result of its own actions. You yourself suggested that we should recognize Islamic “paranoia” and treat it as a given, rather than demanding that the Islamic world throw off its paranoia. In other words, you are willing to accept and make permanent a psychologically sick state of mind on the part of Muslims, that being paranoia. Musn’t disturb his paranoia!!! How about challenging Muslims to self-criticism and to some truth.
Muslims need to take a good hard long look at Saddam Hussein. He is a product of THEIR POLICY to support ANYONE who challenged the West. ANYONE.
The white population of South Africa participated in a “truth and reconciliation” movement. It appears to have worked fairly well. Reconciliation is based on truth. Let’s have some truth about the Armenian genocide. Let’s have some truth about Saddam Hussein and his henchman. We can talk about reconciliation then.
It is true that some Islamic nations are culturally backward, socially repressive and religiously intolerant, but that is not the issue.
The issue is whether inflammatory comments by American religious leaders known to be friends of our President, as well as provacative actions by our government directed at the Islamic world further the cause of peace, and promote security and stability. Or do such comments and actions increase instability and threaten our security by further antagonizing Muslims and feeding their sense of paranoia and fear regarding the intentions of the West?
Clearly the way we see our role in the Arab world is completely different than the way most Arabs percieve it. We see ourselves spreading democracy. They see us propping up corrupt regimes and dictatorships like Eqypt and Uzbekistan. We see ourselves bringing the benefits of free enterprise. They see us trying to seize control of their oil resources. We see ourselves making a great sacrifice to protect the Iraqi people from the violent remnants of the old Baathist regime. They see us hauling innocent people into Abu Ghraib prison and torturing them. We see ourselves defending our faith. They see us insulting theirs.
When we read in the paper that there have literally been scores of suicide bombers attacking American and Iraqi targets in Iraq in just the last few weeks, this tells us that there are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of young people in the Islamic world who feel so threatened by America that they are willing to die and become martyrs for their faith (as they see it) to strike back at us. This should give us pause, because sooner or later they are going to be on our soil again.
I can’t see how, in such an environment, needlessly inflamming the Islamic world further serves any good purpose. Thanks to the Bush administrationn relations with the Arab world are hopelessly damaged for at least a generation. The best things we can do are promote an equitable settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, arm the Iraqi Shiites and Kurds to the teeth so they can fight off the Baathists and the Sunnis in the coming Iraqi civil war, and develop alternative sources of energy as quickly as possible so we can disengage from the middle-east.
Dean Bin Scourtes, Call your Mosque Part I
Dean writes in paragraph I
It is true that some Islamic nations are culturally backward, socially repressive and religiously intolerant, but that is not the issue.
Missourian replies: This is very much the issue. The essential and fundamental perversity of the Left today consists of its complicity to shield the Islamic world from the truth AND to shield the Western world from the truth about Islam.
The Islamic world is the most backward set of societies in the world. Although parts of Africa are poorer, I consider the Islamic world to be more backward because of the access to oil wealth. Saudi Arabia is truly a backward society becauase it possesses the material means to give an education to all of its citizens yet allows the majority of its female population to remain illiterate.
What Dean never acknowledges is that the Muslim world lives in a fantasy, a dream world under set of flattering illusions. The primary cause of this refusal to face reality and the inability to face reality is Islam. The secondary cause is the propaganda of the tinpot dictators that run the Islamic world. The cultural Left assists through writers like Franz Fanon and Edward Said.
Islam is a totalitarian system of thought. Islam sucks all of the intellectual oxygen out of a society. Islam dictates not only religious thought and practice, but it provides rules governing business contracts, insurance, marriage, inheritance, child rearing, military, and government. Islamic scholars claim that the Koran contains scientific information. The penalty for MURTAD in Islam is DEATH. MURTAD includes what Westerners would call apostasy (completely abandoning one’s birth faith) AND significant deviations from orthodox Islam. This means that a person questioning any custom, practice or law in an Islamic society runs the risk of being charged with MURTAD. This is not an abstraction. This is not a leftover from the medieval period. This is in place NOW. The express written laws of the countries of the Organization of Islamic States contain criminal punishment for insulting Islam or insulting the prophet.
If this barrier to intellectual growth weren’t enough, the local tinpot dictators control the press. They are a constant source of anti-Israeli and anti-American propaganda. The Egyptian press is directly controlled by Mubarak. It recently published the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as a true historical document.
The Middle East is crippled by paranoia, disinformation, propaganda and an overactive sense of pride. These societies have NEVER developed a tradition of constructive self-criticism.
Writers who are respected in the Islamic world reject the conclusion that OBL was responsible for the Twin Towers. If someone can exist in this type of illogical, non-factual haze, there is no hope for any kind of progress.
Franz Fanon gave Muslims an excuse to claim eternal victimhood status and Edward Said essentially stated that no one can criticize the Third World.
Your position is consistent with this. You claim you want “reconciliation” but no where do you demand that the Muslim world clear the fog from its collective mind and face its unpleasant truths.
Dean Ben Scourtes, Call Your Mosque, Part II
Dean writes:
The issue is whether inflammatory comments by American religious leaders known to be friends of our President, as well as provacative actions by our government directed at the Islamic world further the cause of peace, and promote security and stability. Or do such comments and actions increase instability and threaten our security by further antagonizing Muslims and feeding their sense of paranoia and fear regarding the intentions of the West?
Missourian: Let’s look at the phrase “provocative actions by our government directed at the Islamic world.” Starting in 1979, Iran declared war on the United States and persued war through its agents, individual terrorists and Hizbollah. Osama Ben Laden declared war on the United States sometime in the 1980’s. These are PROVOCATIVE ACTIONS BY MUSLIMS IN THE WESTERN WORLD. Somehow these actions NEVER come into Dean’s analysis. Why? Muslims are NEVER accountable for their actions. They are always victims and they may not be criticized, their delusions and paranoia must not be disturbed.
Let’s look at just a few events leading up to 9/11. We had the first World Trade Center bombing in 1991, we had the Achille Lauro, we had the attack on the Israeli athletes in Germany, we had the U.S.S.Cole and we had the attack on American embassies in Africa. Somehow in Dean Ben Scourtes world, these events have no impact.
What provocative actions by our government directed at the Islamic world. Afghanistan served as a military base for assaults on our country. We had every right to go into Afghanistan and overthrow the Taliban. The people of Afghanistan have their first elected President. They are forming real political parties and they have begun to rebuild their country. They have not been forced to abandon their Islamic faith.
Both the Dueffler Report and David Kay’s report confirm that Saddam had the means to put together dangerous WMD in short order, the absence of stockpiles did not mean that Saddam was not a threat to the world. The American military action against Saddam turned over a rock and showed the world the worms living under there.
I think the best thing that can happen to the Islamic world is that they are forced to see the trial of Saddam Hussein and to see the evidence of the mass graves. This ugly tyrant, this murderous thug was supported by Arabs everywhere because he shook a fist in the face of the United States. There is no tyrant too filthy and murderous for Arabs to support if it feeds their pathetic regional ego.
The world can now see that it is America that is rebuilding the decrepit public works system. It is America that is rebuildling the marshlands destroyed by Saddam. It is America who is digging up the mass graves of innocent people, including women who died clutching their babies.
This is the ugly truth of the Islamic world. The entire planet should see it. Every Arab who supported Saddam Hussein should have to tour the mass graves.
A member of the audience at an Ann Coulter speech stood up once and stated “I support my Arab brothers? Ann then asked him if he meant the Arabs that had just voted in Iraq or the Arabs that blew up the World Trade Center.
Dean, according to your world view, Muslims have the right to be paranoid, to live in a fog, and to refuse to acknowledge their own responsibility for the mess their world is in. You are right there helping them evade reality and thereby perpetuating thieir misery and the worlds.
Dean Ben Scourtes, Call Your Mosque, Part III
Dean writes:
Clearly the way we see our role in the Arab world is completely different than the way most Arabs percieve it. We see ourselves spreading democracy. They see us propping up corrupt regimes and dictatorships like Eqypt and Uzbekistan. We see ourselves bringing the benefits of free enterprise. They see us trying to seize control of their oil resources. We see ourselves making a great sacrifice to protect the Iraqi people from the violent remnants of the old Baathist regime. They see us hauling innocent people into Abu Ghraib prison and torturing them. We see ourselves defending our faith. They see us insulting theirs.
Missourian: Let us remember that Islam had told Muslims that they are “the best people.” The Koran has told Muslims that Allah says that Muslims should not be required to take order from the inferior kafir. The Koran has also told them that they would rule the world, in very temporal sense. Well, that hasn’t really panned out has it.
Propping up corrupt dictatorship? Dean, you need to keep up on current affairs. In a groundbreaking foreign policy speech given in London, President Bush, declared that the West should not collaborate with undemocratic governments in the Third World. It was George W. Bush that reversed the policy of Jimmy Carter. Jimmy Carter got in bed with the Shah and caused the Iranian people to hate us.
No Muslim has the right to complain about the presence of a dictatorship. Islam calls for a theocracy run by mullahs. There is no, REPEAT NO, tradition of democracy in Islam. Any democratic features of the Turkish government was imposed upon it by Ataturk in a consciously anti-Islamic program of modernization.
There are polls taken by reliable sources in Iraq which indicate that a very large percentage of the Iraqi people are genuinely grateful for the American presence. It is an outrage that you suggest that the murderers active today in Iraq represent the Iraqi people. You couldn’t see progress if it a brick wall and you walked into it head-on. The high participation rate of the Iraqi population was a testiment that they had accepted the American invitation to rule themselves.
The true lesson of Abu Ghraib which should be learned by the Iraqis, is that Americans are accountable to courts of law. Saddam’s Husseins henchmen were never accountable to anyone. Iraqis are intelligent enough to understand that.
As to insulting their religion? Please, Al-Zawquari’s forces daily murder innocents in the name of Islam. Naked pictures are embarassing but they don’t really measure up to the slaughter by Al-Zawquari which he repeatedly tells us is conducted in the name of Islam. Maybe you should go straighten Al-Zawquari out, he obviously misunderstands Islam.
Dean,
It is blasphemous and heretical to suggest that Muslims and Christians worship the same God.
Missourian, there are large movements within Islam that are clamoring for reform and who oppose religious entitlements to Muslims, work for human and women’s rights and are open to interfaith dialogue with Jews and Christians.
By the more conservative hardliners, these reformists are labeled as heretical “liberals”.
While I credit Bush for really not caring a whit what people think (as seen in this photo, it is with these groups that our administration needs to work more closely with.
Liberals in Islam
The liberals in Islam fear for their lives. What do you think that rise of the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas and Hizbollah is all about. Iran has the bomb or will soon. James you are living in la-la land created by Esposito and his ilk.
Exactly Who is supporint corrupt dictatorships
A slip of the truth from the NY Times:
“Mr. Bush is popular in countries like Georgia, where his vision of spreading democracy is embraced, and seems a lot looser than in his visits to Germany and France.”
[…where is vision of spreading democracy is pooh-poohed.]
******************************************************************
It was FRANCE, GERMANY and KOFI ANNAN that supported a corrupt dictatorship. If the Muslim world opposed “corrupt dictatorships” they would have welcomed the move to remove Hussein. The truth is that the Arab world will tolerate the worst tyrant since Stalin as a matter of Muslim pride. They have no attachment to democracy. There is nothing democratic about Islam, it is theocratic by definition.
Note 66: Do Muslims, Christians and Jews Worship The Same God?
Well, yes and no.
All three religions appeal to a Creator as the one responsible for all life and to whom all men are indebted via a life of service. It is the characteristics of this Being that the three cannot always agree on, and I would suggest that many Christians have also fashioned within their minds an “image” regarding what they believe this Being to be. This is not unusual, as we are temporal beings and we must rely on sensory experiences to which we can relate: God is a “Judge”, a “Father”, a “Man”, a “Military Conquerer” or a “Benevolent Santa Claus In The Sky”. All and none are correct. They probably only reflect a miniscule portion of the Truth, if at all.
I’m not saying we cannot know God at all. What I’m saying is that we are ourselves idolatrous when we petition God or appeal to a God that God Himself knows nothing of. I don’t see how Pat Robertson’s implicit prayers for the deaths of the members of the Supreme Court is much different than some imam praying for the collapse of the Western infidel societies. Is there any substantive difference?
On the flip side, I don’t believe that a Supreme Being would shut his ears (to use anthropomorphic imagery) to the prayers of an earnestly seeking Muslim who in their heart strives for goodness.
*** NOTE: Yes, I would agree that the degree to which Muslims adhere to a twisted conception or idealization of God appears to be much greater than other religions, although to what degree I myself cannot be certain. I’m just not comparing the two as equivalent.
JamesK
You don’t know what you are talking about.
The definition of Islam is very clear determinant of what makes a Muslim a Muslim is the acceptance of Mohammed as the Seal of the Prophets and the Divinity of the Koran. Yes, in Islam it is proper to talk about the “Divinity” of the an object, a book -Koran. The Koran is considered to be – first, last and always– the direct dictation of the word of God from Allah. There is only one definition of Muslim and that is someone who accepts the Koran as the Word of God. The Koran expressly and repeatedly repudiates the idea that Jesus of Nazareth is Lord. The Koran directly and expressly states that what we call the Old and New Testament are corrupt and not from the true God.
Being a Christian and being a Muslim is forever mutually exclusive. Mohammed plagiarized and modified some stories from the Old and New Testament, but, they have been so thoroughly confused and mistated that they stand as mockeries of the Old and New Testament.
It is only the merest formality that both Christianity and Islam are described as monotheisms.
For the record, James, you should note that there exists a very well respected European linguist, Luxemburg, who is preparing a major publication that will argue that the manuscripts which Muslim consider to be the oldest versions of the Koran are not written in classical Arabic, but are, in fact, written in a closely related language of the time, Syriac. When the same manuscripts (which are written like Hebrew only with vowels) are interpreted as Syriac, entirely different texts emerge. This techanique has allowed Luxemburg to decipher segments of the Koran that have eluded previous interpretation by all scholars including Muslims.
How can Muslims Complain about Dictatoships when They Want Sharia
Dean has been arguing that Muslims are upset with the West because the West supposedly supports corrupt dictatorships. As if Muslims were democrats? There is no Muslim tradition of democracy, none. Here is a note from the New York Post:
http://www.nysun.com/article/13570
This is a new political phenomenon for a country that still fondly imagines itself to be a United Kingdom. It is also a phenomenon that is likely to outlast the coalition presence in Iraq, or even the present phase of the war on terror. Since the results of a recent Guardian opinion poll, among others, provides evidence that a large proportion of British Muslims not only thought the attacks of September 11, 2001, were justified, but would like to be governed by shariah law, it makes sense now to talk about an Islamist vote in Britain.
Not only do Christians and Muslims worship the same God, this belief was central to attempts by Pope John Paul II to build interfaith bridges between Christinity and Islam.
See “Pope John Paul II: He Helped Build Interfaith Bridge”
http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/fellows/khan20050405.htm
“Four years ago, Pope John Paul II appeared at one of the oldest mosques in the Islamic world, the Ummayad Mosque in Damascus, Syria. It is deeply cherished by Muslims and Christians because it is believed to be the tomb of Prophet Yahya (John the Baptist to Christians). During the visit, he said: “It is my ardent hope that Muslim and Christian religious leaders and teachers will present our two great religious communities as communities in respectful dialogue, never more as communities in conflict.”
For centuries, Muslims have felt alienated by Christianity. Though Muslims recognize Christianity as a revealed religion of God, Christian denominations have rejected Islam as heresy and waged holy wars against it.
Despite theological disagreements with Islam, Pope John Paul II departed from this historical practice. He always considered Muslims as a fellow spiritual community deserving of respect and admiration.
Islam and Christianity share a majority of their beliefs. The principle value of the unity of divinity, the prophets, Jesus and Mary, Jerusalem and the promise of life after life are all common to both faiths.
The Koran, the book that Muslims believe is the direct revelations from God, acknowledges Judaism and Christianity as precursors and early forms of Islam.
Today, through the efforts of John Paul II as a pioneer in interfaith bridge-building, Muslims, too, feel as though Catholicism has started to reciprocate and recognize Islam and Muslims as partners in spirituality.”
Additionally Islam is the only religion outside of Christianity that recognizes Jesus Christ, and His name is never uttered by Muslims without the obligatory words “peace be upon him”. “Within the pages of the Qur’an is a distinctly Islamic portrayal of Jesus. Three of its Surahs (chapters), Aale-Imran, Al-Maida and Mariam are so named because of their references to Jesus and his work. There are about ninety verses spread across fifteen Surahs of the Qur’an that refer to Jesus. A second source for the Islamic understanding of Jesus are the numerous Ahadith (traditions) which portray his teaching and the ultimate purpose of his first and second coming. There are also many references to Jesus in other Islamic literature.”
http://islam.itl.org.uk/Jesus/
http://islam.about.com/cs/faith/a/bl_jesus.htm
Of course there are significant differences in how Jesus is viewed by Christianity and Islam. Islam sees Christ only as a “messenger” of God, and rejects the concept of the Holy Trinity. So there are serious and formidible differences between the Christian and Islamic views of the nature of God. “Muslims revere Jesus as a prophet, but not the Son of God”, http://islam.about.com/cs/faith/a/bl_jesus.htm.
However, to say that we do not worship “the same God”, is plainly incorrect, as one can quicly find out with the follwing Google search: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Jesus+and+islam
Muslim Brotherhood Misunderstands Jihad, Teaching Moment for Dean
from jihadwatch.com
We, as Muslim Brotherhood and as the world leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood, support the armed resistance in Iraq against the American occupier, one hundred percent. I personally, as all members of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and around the world, wish to carry weapons against the American occupation?This is a matter of religion, not politics. When a Muslim land is occupied, Jihad becomes an individual duty?.”
Missourian comments: Please note, the reference to “this is a matter of religion, not politics. When a Muslim land is occupied, Jihad becomes an individual duty.” Funny, he must not mean jihad under a duly appointed caliph OR jihad as personal spiritural struggle. Quick, Dean, get out there and straighten them out, they clearly misunderstand Islam.
Islam is a world wide triumphalist religious and political movement aimed at controlling at much territory as possible. Its expansive war is called “jihad” and it ebbs and flows from time to time. Islam is currently in conflict with jews in Israel, Iraqis in Iraq, Russians in Chechnya, Buddhists in Thailand, Hindus in Kashmir and India and Western Europeans in Western Europe.
Dean, Yes JPII was wrong
Dean, read this slowly and carefully. The Koran itself addresses Christianity and Judaism directly, explicitly and clearly. It declares them sinful and false and declares that the Christians and Jews will burn in hellfire.
Now, do what you want with that. JPII was wrong. We do not worship the same God, and it remains heretical and blasphemous to suggest we do. The Koran twists the story of Jesus to such an extent that it is unrecognizable. The Koran claims that Jesus was not crucified and that he is not the Son of God.
To deny that Jesus was the Messiah and the Son of God is blasphemous and heretical for a Christian. JPII was wrong.
Relentless and Cruel Persecution of Christians by Muslims Going on Now
Dean, as we speak Christians in Pakistan, Jordan, Egypt, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Saudi Arabia, Turkey,Malaysia and Indonesia are subject to the most relentless and cruel repression. Their suffering fails to move you. Instead you argue in favor of tip-toeing around the “paranoia” of the Arabs, hoping that they won’t fly another plane through one of our buildings. Pope Beneditc XVI has noted that the Muslim world FAILED TO RECIPROCATE in the slightest to JPII’s overtures.
Yet, you have described the same Muslims who are persecuting your Christian brethern as “pious and devout.” Shame on you. You criticize the so called Religious Right for emphasizing personal sexual morality too much, then offer to bond with a religion that directly and expressly declares women “deficient in intellect” and subject to a “scourging” by their husbands. Shame on you again.
The Koran on Christianity
DIRECT REFERENCE TO THE TRINITY
Sura 5:73 They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah
DIRECT REFERENCE TO CHRIST OUR LORD
Sura 5:17 In blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ the son of Mary
REJECTING FRIENDSHIP WITH JEWS AND CHRISTIANS
Sura 5:51 O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and Christians for your friends and protectors.
FIGHTING THE PEOPLE OF THE BOOK UNTIL THEY FEEL THEMSELVES SUBDUED
Sura 9:29 Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, no acknowledge the religion of Truth (even if they are) of the People of the Boo, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
Ibn Kathir elaborates on this in his commentary on Sura 9:29 That verse says that the People of the Book should feel themselves subdued. He glosses “subdued” as “disgraced, humiliated and belittled.” Therefore Muslims are not allow to honor the people of Dhimmah or elevate them above Muslims, for they are miserable, disgraced and humiliated.”
Who is Ibn Kathir: Isma’il bin ‘Amir bin Kathir al Dimashqu (1301-1372), known popularly as Ibn Kathir, is an eminent commentator on the Koran representing broad mainstream in Islamic tradition according to German Muslim scholar Ahmad von Denffer
Here is Ibn Kathir on Dhimmitude:
If the infidels live among the Muslims, in accordance with the conditions set out by the Prophet-there is nothing wrong with it provided that they pay jizya to the Islamic treasury. Other conditions are…that they do not renovate a church or monastery, do not rebuild ones that were destroyed, that they feed for three days any Muslim who passesby their homes… that they rise when a Muslim wishes to sit, tha they do not imitate Muslims in dress and speech, nor ride horses, nor own swords, nor arm themselves with any kind of weapon; that they do not sell wine, do not show the Cross, do not righ church bells, do not raise their voices during prayer, that they shave their hari in front so as to make them easily identifiable, do not incite anyone against the Muslims and do not strike a Muslim… If they violate these conditions, they have no protection.”
Here is how Dean’s friends treat Chaldean Christians
The Reverend Said Bello, a Chaldean Catholic who left Iraq for Canada in 1990 but has maintained close ties with the Christian commjnity there, reports that Christians in Iraq are “living like slaves…. The Christians have no work, and no revenue. The powerful are taking advantage of the weak. In some cases, young mo thers who husbands were killed in war have been obliged to become Muslim to feed their children.
Here are your PIOUS and DEVOUT friends with whom we share so much in common. The same PIOUS and DEVOUT friends who put so many Armenian Christians to the cruelest deaths imaginable and who have never acknowledged or admitted it.
Current Guide to Islam calls for Death to Isalmic Apostates
Again, from the pious and devout people who “worship the same God.”
The Islamic legal manual “umdat al-Salik (published in English translation as Reliance of the Traveller), endorsed by Al-Azhar in 1991 a conforming to the practice and faith of the orthodox Sunni community and endorsed by Muslim authorities in Jordan, Syria and Saudi Arabia.
Death to apostates:
When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostasizes from Islam, he deserve to be killed. Section 08.1
Any questions? There is no religious or intellectual freedom in Islam. It is a totalitarian thought system enforced by penalty of death. Question a single, even minor teaching of Mohammed, and you are slated for death.
Is it Blasphemous for a Christian to Deny the Divinity of Christ as Does the Koran
If you believe in the “same God” as a Muslims THEN
You must believe that the Koran is the direct, dictated word of “same God”
If you believe that the Koran is the direct, dictate word of that “same God” THEN
You must believe that Christ is NOT divine, NOT the Son of God
If you deny that Christ is Divine and the Son of God, then you are not a Christian
Get a copy of the Koran and read the whole foul thing.
Koran Directs Muslim Dominance over All
From Sultanhussein Tabandeh recents writings:
Islam never allows a Muslim to come under the authority of a non-Muslim in any circumstances at all, as is made perfectly plain in “God will never make a way for infidels (to exercise lordship) over believers. Koran 4:41 and therefore He never granted permission that Muslims should be in marriage substantially subordinate themselves to non-Muslims…
Islam and its peoples must be above infidels, and never permit non-Muslims to acquire lordship over them.
Islamic Human Rights and Non-Muslims, Page 138-39, Westview Pres, 1999
Ah the fresh breezes of love and tolerance. This is why “moderates” in Islam will have a hard time if they survive the death threats. It’s the Koran, unchangeable.
Dean’s Compare and Contrast
7) The religious right teaches religious bigotry and promotes religious hatred.
Followers of Islam are pious and devout people who believe in the same God as we do, and follow many of the same ethical imperitatives. We should be reaching out to them and seeking reconciliation. Instead, the religious right spares no opportunity to slander, insult and threaten members of that faith, feeding their already dangerous paranoia, fear and anxiety regarding the intentions of the West.
****************************************
Islamic moral imperatives:
A) Men have the right to scourge (beat severely ) their wives
B) Men have the right to four wives and as many slave girls as they own
C) Men can divorce at will, women must petition imam
D) Men have automatic custody after divorce
E) Muslims must always dominate non-Muslims, therefore Muslim women cannot marry non-Muslims
F) Muslims must never take Jews and Christians for friends or protectors
G) Jews and Muslims will roast in Hell
H) Jesus Christ is not the Son of God
I) Women constitute most of the people in Hades
J) Women are deficient in intellect
K) Women’s inheritance is one-half of her male relatives
L) Women’s testimony is worth half that of a man in court
M) Dogs are unclean as are gekkos (little tiny lizards)
N) Images of the human form are forbidden (Good bye Lourve)
O) Poeple who leave Islam, or question Islam or mock Mohammed should be killed
P) Jesus was never crucified and is just one of a long line of prophets
Q) If a woman or a dog walks in front of a man while he is praying that prayer is cancelled
R) Women are the cause of sexual sin and they must be covered and confined to the home to
avoid tempting men.
Wow, I feel like I am in Church!!!
Missourian writes: “If you believe in the ‘same God’ as a Muslims THEN
You must believe that the Koran is the direct, dictated word of ‘same God’
If you believe that the Koran is the direct, dictate word of that ?same God,” & etc.
Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say that Christians and Muslims believe in the same God, but believe different things ABOUT that God? In other words same God, different religions. For example, if you say that the average temperature in San Diego is 63 and I say that it’s 65 we’re still talking about the same city, even though we posit different things about the same city.
If you want to take a hard philosophical line and assert that all of God’s properties are essential properties, then indeed, to posit different properties about God would be to posit different gods. The problem is that whenever any two people believed different things about God — any difference in the slightest detail — they would be talking about different Gods. Thus each Christian would literally have “his own personal Jesus,” as the song says. So that’s not a very good solution.
No. 82: For heaven sakes, anyone could take the worst examples of behavior from any group and use that those examples to paint that group in the most unfavorable light, which is exactly what you have done in order to validate your own hateful bigotry.
I wasn’t defending Islamic beliefs only suggesting that they are not diametrically opposed to Chrisianity but share some of the same values and concepts. I also argued that the world would be a safer place if we tried to understand the reasons why so many Islamic people are so angry at America, and instead of aggravating matters any further, explored means by which we might soothe relations.
To use a metaphor, the issue isn’t whether Hornets are good or bad insects, but whether repeatedly poking a stick in a Hornets nest is a wise course of action. You seem to think that it is.
Reliance of the Traveler Is Not the “Worst Example” it demonstrates Islam’s totalitarian nature
Dean, Reliance of the Traveler is a compendium of modern orthodox Islamic teaching. The version I quoted was dated 1991 not 632.
The sections of the Koran that I quoted are in full force and effect and are seen as DIVINE LAW by Muslims today.
The importance of understanding the DEATH PENALTY for apostasy is that is reveals that Islam is a totalitarian ideology. Deviation from orthodox Islam results in a death sentence. This is not an academic abstraction, this is being taught today, this is being enforced today. The death penalty for apostasy or insulting Islam is on the books in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Saudi Arabia.
How little you care about Christians suffering today under the thumb of Islam.
You are willing to sacrifice them, you are willing to hemp the greatest contempt on what you call the “religious right” here in America yet you can’t find it in yourself to draw a single negative conclusion about Islam.
Shame on you.
Note 82, No Jim
No, Jim we are not talking about the “same God” in any reasonable way. Pull your head out of the book and take a look at what is happeing in the world.
Note 84
Dean writes:
I wasn?t defending Islamic beliefs only suggesting that they are not diametrically opposed to Chrisianity but share some of the same values and concepts. I also argued that the world would be a safer place if we tried to understand the reasons why so many Islamic people are so angry at America, and instead of aggravating matters any further, explored means by which we might soothe relations.
Missourian: I proved to you categorically that Islam is a totalitarian system that teaches Muslims they are superior to others and are ordained by God to rule over others on this earth. If denying the divinity of Christ is not “diametrically opposed” I don’t know what is.
How can you given honor to people who consider Mohammed the perfect person. If Mohammed was an American religious conservative you would criticize him for the use of torture, for assassinations, for rape for widespread slavery. How can you equate the followers of Christ with the followers of this warlord. Your hatred of the religious right has driven you into the hands of the enemy of your Faith, the enemy of your country and the enemy of your civilization and values.
Dean, if the incineration of 3,000 of your countrymen by people screaming “God is Great” doesn’t wake you up nothing will. We are under attack by these people and you are so consumed with your hatred of Bush that you will ally yourself with them. Pious and devout? Shame on you.
Missourian, no one here is unaware of the militant Islamic threat, least of all me. It used to only take a couple glasses of pop-top plane wine to get me through a flight … it now requires a cornucopia of sedatives downed with a carafe of Grey Goose to keep me from running up and down the aisles shrieking.
My question is: how do you deal with the history of Christianity and its treatment of women? It’s not pleasant. Do we ignore it? Justify it? How did we get here from where we were? Granted, there’s no comparison between modern Christianity and modern Islam, but you seem to gloss over the past history of our extremely misogynistic religion.
Dear JamesK,
Christianity and women: You make the logical mistake of equating behavior that is clearly against the tenets of the faith with behavior that is clearly in accord with the tenets of the faith.
Jesus Christ elevated women in a way unparalleled in history before or since. To incarnate he took flesh from a woman. He taught women, he approved of women. In the upper room waiting on the descent of the Holy Spirit, women were counted, numbered among the people there. Unheard of before that. Without Jesus Christ and Christianity, women would have no rights anywhere in the world.
When supposedly Christian men mistreat and oppress women it is sinful and not honored by our God. We are told that the union of man and woman in marriage is analogous to His union with the Church and that we must submit to one another. Man is head of the woman as Christ is head of the Church. Christ became head of the Church by giving Himself totally even unto death for the welfare of the Church, a giving that is continuing in every moment of existence. Men are called by Christ to that same self-sacrificing love for our wives. To our shame, we rarely live up to that calling.
When Muslim men mistreat, rape, and even kill women, their activity is not only socially approved, it is honored by their God because such acts were preformed by the Prophet Mohammed.
Wake up!! The foundation of Islam is a socio-political system imposed by force on warring desert tribes as a way to build and maintain political power. Most of the ideas concerning Jesus Christ that Mohammed had came from a heretic Nestorian** monk which were further twisted by an ignorant, barbaric, vicious mind.
That any spirituality similar in kind or content to what Jesus revealed is practiced by individual Muslims is a testament to the power of the Holy Spirit acting in hearts that are really striving for truth.
To suggest that Christians and Muslims actually worship the same God is blasphemous because the teachings about God describe beings with radically different natures. We are not talking about the same city at all, it is like saying the slums of Calcutta are the same as the Heavenly Jerusalem. Maybe to Mother Theresa they were, but that too was due to the ineffable power of God to transform.
Islam certainly does not teach that Christians and Muslims believe in the same God. Muslims in Islamic states don?t act as if we believe in the same God. They do here because it is quite permissible to lie to infidels to achieve the will of Allah, i.e. the domination of unbelievers. To agree with such a lie about our God means we are either craven cowards, totally confused about the nature and content of our faith, ignorant of the content of the Islamic belief system, just don?t care or some mixture of the preceding.
**For those who have forgotten, the main fallacy of Nestorians was that Jesus was not God Incarnate, but just a man who became the Christ–took on the Christ at his baptism by John. They refused to call Mary the Theotokos, God Bearer for that reason.
Note 88: It is nothing but a liberal lie to to proof text a few passages from the Hebrew Scriptures and claim that Judaism and Christianity were from the start misogynistic. It is an historical fact that Jews were the first to establish laws that actually protected women. This protection was certianly not equivalent to what women enjoy today, but since we’re talking about period in human history when women were seen as property (as most of the Arabic world today treats women, which is why Arabic honor killings are rarely if ever prosecuted), the Jewish laws established in the Pentateuch were quite progressive for their time.
Secondly, if Christianity was so misogynistic from the get go, please explain why so many of the early converts were women. Where these poor deluded damsels just stupid? Or did they, in fact, find a faith where men and women were equal before God?
Notes 89,90: Yes, Christ revolutionized the concepts of how women should be treated.
I’ve already admitted that.
However, it is no “lie” to suggest that the Old Testament treatment of and views on the value of women was less than stellar, and this treatment was supposedly sanctioned by God. It is FACT … let me say it again … it is FACT.
Now, I’ll admit to not knowing Aramaic, and I do not have 20 years of experience in Biblical history. So if you’d like to provide some exhaustive Scriptural analysis that will “perfume and massage” some of these passages to make them more palatable, go for it. However, on the surface, these passages look pretty damning to me.
Leviticus 27:6 A child aged 1 month to five years of age was worth 5 shekels if a boy and 3 shekels if a girl. “And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver.”
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 requires that a virgin woman who has been raped must marry her attacker, no matter what her feelings are towards the rapist. “If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife….”
Let me further clarify my point.
I’ve seen liberals that too often refuse to acknowledge any good that the U.S. or a given religious denomination does. On the flip side, I’ve seen some conservatives refuse to acknowledge any evil done by the U.S. or their own Church (e.g., the Crusades were “necessary”, the American Indians were “savages”, etc.) Both are wrong approaches because they’re less interested in objective morality than in misplaced loyalty to some ideology or group.
If we say that we believe in an Eternal and Unchanging God, the fact that the Old Testament treatment of women was a “little better” than it otherwise would have been in the Middle East in Nothing A.D. isn’t going to cut it with me. Why do we feel it necessary to justify and rationalize the polygamy, the devaluing of women and the rampant violence in the Old Testament?
You’re right … Christianity is NOT the same today! Let’s not candycoat what it was, though.
Let me repeat, how women were treated thousands of years ago cannot be compared with how women are treated today.
Instead of dragging our modern consciousness back thousands of years in history and judging people by our standards. Try and judge these people by what is available to them in their time. For example, try and enter the mind of someone who believes that women are nothing but property to use, abuse and toss away as one pleases. No different than a slave or beast of burden. One night, after drinking to much with his tent-mates, some guy goes out and decides to have his way with his neighbor’s daughter. In Arabic cultures (as is evident even to this day) this guy is blameless, obviously he was tempted by the harlet and the woman should be punished.
The Jewish law, as established in the Torah, said No, that is not how it is going to be. If this man does this he is the one at fault. He is the one who will be punished, not the woman. If you violate a woman you will pay the woman’s father, and NOW you have to care for her for the rest of your life. That is a rather big difference from, stoning the harlet to death. Furthermore, this guy isn’t going to be judged by the leaders of his own tribe; people who are likely to dismiss this guy’s behavior. He is going to be judged by a court – the Sanhedrin.
By our modern standards that guy is guilty of rape and should go to prison, on that there is no argument. We believe that because we understand that all people have inalienable rights established by their Creator, and we understand this because of our inheritance from the Jews. Thousands of years ago people throughout the world had no concept of human rights. Today, because of those texts being attacked here as misogynistic, we grasp this concept of human rights.
Thank God in heaven for the Jews.
The fact that there hasn’t been another terrorist attack on US soil since September 11th, 2001 has given Americans a false sense of security. Pakistan has nuclear weapons, Iran may soon have them as well, and many Russian weapons remain poorly guarded. Al Qaeda remains as dangerous as ever. Our borders are still as porous as ever, since millions of illegal aliens are still providing the bulk of labor for California agriculture, midwestern meat-packing and a number of other low-wage industries. Successful strikes against vulnerable US tranportation hubs, chemical plants and tourist destinations still have the potential to severely damage and cripple our economy, not to mention take many lives.
In this environment it is clearly and extremely irresponsible to continue making comments and promoting policies that aggravate and inflame relations between the West and the Islamic world. This does not mean we let down our guard, or lessen our efforts to wipe out Al Qaeda.
However, we need to recognizes that there is an alarmingly high degree of hostility in the Arab world towards the United States and in the interest of our own security it is vital that we understand the source of that hostility and takes steps to reduce it, because in the long run it’s better to drain the swamp than to keep fighting off the alligators. Comments that seek to demonize people of the Islamic faith are clearly unhelpful and counter-productive toward that end.
Michael writes, “Islam certainly does not teach that Christians and Muslims believe in the same God.” This comment is easily proven false.
I googled “Jesus and Islam” ( http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Jesus+and+islam&btnG=Google+Search ) and found a number of Islamic sites in which Muslims express their reverence for Jesus Christ, whose name they always follow with the word “peace be upon him”. Although Muslims do not believe in the Holy Trinity or divinity of Christ, they do view Jesus Christ as a holy personage and messenger of (their)God, and accept the virgin birth and miracles of Christ as true.
It would be more accurate to say that Christians and Muslims worship the same God, but view that God in fundamentally and significantly different ways. We fundamentally disagree with the Islamic understanding of the nature of God, but to claim that they do not worship the same God serves only to perpetuate dangerous misunderstandings and hatreds that can only lead to bad outcomes.
JamesK, Note 88 and Note 92
Sometime ago, I write a short note on “Terms and Conditions for Debating About Islam.”
In that note, I pointed out a few guidelines that promote an intelligent debate. Here they are again.
COMPARE COMPARABLE HISTORIAL PERIODS. If Islamic society is to be compared to another society, it is only far to look at comparable historical periods. For instance, compare the 7th Century activities of Mohammed with the 7th Century of Christianity. Women were trated better in 7th Century Christian societies than in 7th Century Islamic societies. Or the debater can compare the modern world of Islam with the modern world of Christianity. Women are treated better in modern Christian societies than in modern Islamic societies.
Recognize Islam’s Unique Status. The Christian world and the Western world are no longer identical. There does not exist a Christian State anywhere in the world, today. The status of Anglicanism in Britain is so diluted legally and socially that it is only a formality to call Anglicanism a state religion. Not so, with Islam. There exists an Organization of Islamic States. There exists full fledged governments today which are Islamic states and which have legal systems based on Isalmic law. THERE DOES NOT EXIST A MUSLIM MAJORITY STATE IN WHICH NON-MUSLIMS ARE GIVEN EQUAL RIGHTS UNDER THE LAW. I previously produced the quotation from the Koran which explains why. The Koran states that “Allah does not intend for a Muslim to be subordinate to a non-Muslim.”
Recognize that Christian Theology reflects the Incarnation of Christ. While Christians consider the Old Testament to be fully sacred, our theology is affected by an event in history, the incarnation of Christ. Therefore the influence and impact of the Old Testament changed after the His incarnation. May I suggest you look at Christ’s teaching on marriage and at St. Paul’s discussion of the Law.
Dean Note 94
You have detached yourself from any meaningful definition of “same God.”
Even if you are willing to overlook the teeny, tiny little fact that Christians believe that Jesus Christ is Lord and that He is fully Divine and that the time will come when “every knee will bow” to Him, Muslims and Christians do not worship the same God. You do understand that if you were to stand on a street corner in Pakistan or Bangladesh and declare the “Jesus is Lord” you would be stoned or arrested. Muslims know that this is a non-negotiable concept which forever divide us. Your willingness to disregard this is disgraceful, blasphemous and heretical.
We worship a Trintarian God, Muslims do not. Again, a Muslim would arrest you if you attempted to persuade a Muslim to believe in a Trinitarian God.
Allan is so very, very different the Our Lord that it is laughable. The concept that Allah would stoop to become a human, to share our lives is impossible. Allah is a mighty potentate that exercises his right to treat his worshippers as slaves.
Our Lord left his Thorne and chose to humble himself in the form of a carpenter.
He calls us His Friend if we do His Will. Again, Dean, a Muslim would consider it blasphemous for a worshipper to call Allah Friend.
Allah does not direct his followers to “turn the other cheek.” The Koran is a relentless diatribe against Allah’s enemies. There is no mercy given.
Dean, Is the Koran the Word of God?
Note 94. Again, you have refused to address the critical issue. The meaning of being a Muslim is that you accept the Koran as the direct word of God.
Do you accept the Koran as the Word of God?
Do you accept the Bible as the World of God?
If the Koran is the Word of God, men can marry four wives (message delivered about
660 A.D.)
If the Bible is the World of God, God demands life-long monogamy.
Both cannot be true.
If you don’t address this issue, your comments on Islam can be dismissed as irrational, as well as blasphemous.
Support for Comments
Dean writes:
In this environment it is clearly and extremely irresponsible to continue making comments and promoting policies that aggravate and inflame relations between the West and the Islamic world. This does not mean we let down our guard, or lessen our efforts to wipe out Al Qaeda.
Missourian: Dean, I have provided references from the Koran and from leading Islamic scholars. My posts have been documented. Your approach constitutes appeasement of Islamic societies which are persecuting Christians and non-Muslims today. Your unwillingness to seriously consider the reality of present day Islamic societies and your unwillingness to seriously consider the reality of the teachings of the Koran is despicable. It can only be considered appeasement of the worst kind.
No relationship, even political relationship, will succeed unless it is based on truth. Franz Fanon, Edward Said and the Koran itself have all convinced Islamic societies that they are never to blame for their own troubles. The one thing that the Islamic world needs more than anything is to set aside their victimhood, set aside their ridiculous conspiracy theories and look at reality.
You are an appeaser and an enabler. The world will never have peace until Islamic societies do what Western societies do, allow critical thinking.
Dean it is amazing that you object so adamantly about the Pope actually trying to enforce the doctrines of the Christian Catholic Church and yet treat the tyrannical Moslem clerics with kid gloves.
Dean, is the Koran the revealed Word of God?
What is the Koran, Dean, is it a document containing words dictated by the Angel Gabrile to Mohammed, a warlord that lived in the 7th Century>
May I please have an answer?
What is the Koran, Dean?
James K, Answer Please
You also seem to be promoting the Christians and Muslims worshipe the same God idea.
Please answer. Is the Koran the word of God as dictated by the angel Gabriel? Yes or No, please.