The Jesuits are not aware that the Koran is not the Scripture of the Catholic Church. Perhaps interreligious dialogue between Jesuits and Catholics would help the Jesuits to understand Catholicism better.
A plan to allow for the reading of the Quran from the pulpit during a Mass at St. Peter Church in Charlotte June 26 has been canceled, with an interfaith dialogue planned for October instead. St. Peter Parish had agreed to take part in an event called Faith Shared, in which priests, rabbis and Muslim scholars are scheduled to read sacred texts in each other’s houses of worship. The event is a project of two groups, the Interfaith Alliance and Human Rights First. In announcing the cancellation June 7, Jesuit Father Patrick Earl, pastor of St. Peter, noted that a 2004 Vatican document, “Redemptionis Sacramentum” (“The Sacrament of Redemption”) expressly forbids the reading of texts from other religions during the celebration of Mass.
Leon, this increased sympathy toward Islam (and the virtual disregard for Judaism) is what’s motivating me toward abandoning Catholicism entirely. “Allah” is not Yahweh. Several years ago, I wrote a commentary for David Horowitz’s Front Page Magazine that quoted extensively from an article that Alain Besancon wrote for Commentary Magazine, “What Kind Of Religion Is Islam?” Excerpts from my piece, w/Besancon’s comments in quotes:
“Contributing to the partiality toward Islam is an underlying dissatisfaction with modernity, and with our liberal, capitalist individualistic arrangements…. Alarmed by the ebbing of religious faith in the Christian West, and particularly in Europe, these writers cannot but admire Muslim devoutness…. Surely, they reason, it is better to believe in something than in nothing, and since these Muslims believe in something, they must believe in the same thing we do.”
Influencing that attitude was the work of European scholar Louis Massignon, who popularized the ideas of the Koran as a kind of biblical revelation and of Muslims as being among Abraham’s spiritual children.
“An entire literature favorable to Islam has grown up in Europe,” Besancon wrote, “much of it the work of Catholic priests under the sway of Massignon’s ideas.”
Europe is not the only place where such indulgent ecumenism holds sway. Cardinal Bernard Law, the disgraced former Archbishop of Boston, created controversy in November 2002 when he bowed toward Mecca and prayed to Allah in a suburban mosque during a Ramadan service. Afterward, he told the congregants:
“I feel very much at home with my fellow fundamentalists here, who are convinced that God must be at the center of our lives (Boston Globe, Nov. 25, 2002).”
Such sentimentality, however, ignores the irreconcilable differences between Christianity, Judaism and Islam that Besancon described in his Commentary article, “What Kind Of Religion is Islam?”
Though all three faiths are monotheistic, Islam rejects the doctrines of atonement and redemption that define Christianity and Judaism. Moreover, no concept of a covenant between God and humanity exists in Islam. Instead, Allah decrees his law “by means of a unilateral pact, in an act of sublime condescension (that) precludes any notion of imitating God as is urged in the Bible,” Besancon wrote.
Islam also rejects the Christian doctrines of original sin and the necessity of mediation between God and humanity. In the Koran, Jesus “appears… out of place and out of time, without reference to the landscape of Israel,” Besancon wrote.
Most importantly, Judeo-Christian and Muslim concepts of divinity revolve around one irreconcilable difference:
“Although Muslims like to enumerate the 99 names of God, missing from the list, but central to the Jewish and even more so to the Christian conception of God, is ‘Father’ – i.e., a personal god capable of a reciprocal and loving relation with men,” Besancon wrote. “The one God of the Koran, the God Who demands submission is a distant God; to call him ‘Father’ would be an anthropomorphic sacrilege.”
Sardath, you told me in an earlier conversation that Besancon defended Benedict’s handling of the clerical sex-abuse crisis. While that might be true, that is a separate issue from his analysis of Islam vis-a-vis Judaism and Christianity.
The Catholics who are most ignorant about Islam are Jesuits, Europeans…and European Jesuits. Here’s another article that proves the point:
http://www.acommonword.com/en/a-common-word-in-the-news/19-new-news-items/190-whither-european-catholicism-.html
Joseph, in the article you link at the end of your posting you ask again, “where are the fatwas condemning Islamist terrorism from the sheikhs and imams of al-Azhar – the most prestigious center of Muslim learning in the Sunni world?” I have already shown you where they are:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1690624.stm
http://www.minhajpublications.com/?p=490
http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php
So far you haven’t responded to any of this, and merely repeating the same accusation without engaging the contrary evidence adds nothing to the discussion.
Sardath, the same Sayyed Tantawi who “condemned” suicide bombing in the 2001 article you cite from BBC reversed field less than six months later:
http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/641.htm
Moreover, this same Tantawi — the head of the most prestigious center of Sunni learning in the Muslim world — allows the publication of educational materials that describe Jews and Christians as “pigs” and “monkeys”.
http://haitiholocaustsurvivors.wordpress.com/anti-semitism/yale-anti-semitism-conference-papers/muslim-demonization-of-jews-as-%E2%80%98pigs-and-apes%E2%80%99-theological-roots-and-contemporary-implications-by-neil-kressel/
If any American group used such terms to describe others, that group would be rightfully condemned and ostracized.
Sardath, this article was published in 2009 by Al-Moheet Arab News Network:
“CAIRO — Sheikh Ahmed Ali Othman, supervisor of the Da’awa [Islamic Indoctrination] of the Egyptian Waqf [Islamic Holy places], has issued a Religious Ruling (Fatwa) that pigs in our time have their origins in Jews who angered Allah, such that He turned them into monkeys, pigs, and Satan-worshippers, and it is obligatory to kill and slaughter them [the pigs].
Othman based his ruling on the respected Quranic verse, ‘Say [to the People of the Book – Jews and Christians], Come and I shall make known to you who receives the worst retribution of all from Allah: those whom Allah has cursed and upon whom He has poured His wrath, whom He has made into monkeys and pigs, and who have served abominations. Their place is worst of all, and their deviation is the greatest of all…’ (Quran, sura 5, verse 60)
Sheikh Othman noted that this verse concerning the nation of the prophet Moses descended [from Allah to the Quran], and the books of commentary confirm this. There are two opinions among the Ulama [Islamic scholars] in this regard: The first is that the Jews, whom Allah transformed and turned into pigs, remained in that state until they died, without producing descendants. The other opinion is that the Jews who turned into pigs multiplied and produced descendants, and their line continues to this day. Sheikh Othman also cited Hadiths (traditions attributed to Muhammad) as support…
The Jordanian newspaper Al-Hakika al-Dawliya quoted Othman: “I personally tend towards the view that the pigs that exist now have their origins with the Jews, and therefore their consumption is forbidden in the words of Allah: ‘A carcass, and blood, and the flesh of a pig are forbidden to you….’ Moreover, our master Jesus, peace be unto him – one of the tasks that he will fulfill when he descends to earth is the killing of the pigs, and this is proof that their source is Jewish.
Sheikh Othman said that whoever eats pig, it’s as if he ate meat of an impure person, and stressed that this Religious Ruling is backed by the Islamic Sages of Al Azhar, but they are afraid to say this publically… so the Sages won’t be accused of Anti-Semitism.
Sheikh Ali Abu Al-Hassan, head of the Fatwa Committee at Al-Azhar [Sunni Islamic university], said that the first view is accurate, because when Allah punishes a group of people he punishes only them. When Allah grew angry with the nation of Moses, He turned them into pigs and monkeys as an extraordinary punishment… but they died out without leaving descendants.”
More about Sheik Tantawi, from Middle East Media Research Institute:
Sheik of Al-Azhar, Muhammad Sayyed Tantawi, the leading religious authority in the Sunni Muslim establishment in Egypt, joined in the debate, saying that “the suicide operations are of self-defense and a kind of martyrdom, as long as the intention behind them is to kill the enemy’s soldiers, and not women or children.”[8] It is interesting to note, that Sheik Tantawi had in the past published a stronger version of his stance on this issue, in which he stated: “Any explosion that leads to the death of innocent women and children is a criminal act, carried out only by people who are base, cowards and traitors, because a rational man with just a bit of respect and manliness, refrains from such operations altogether.” It is noteworthy that this declaration by Sheik Tantawi referred to the attacks against the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and it does not seem to apply to Palestinian attacks against Israelis.[9]
However, an Egyptian law professor, Tawfiq Al-Shawi, recalled that Tantawi had issued in the past an opposite religious ruling, namely, that the suicide attacks are acceptable in the Shari’a: “On August 4, 1998, in an interview in the Al-Hayat daily, Sheik Tantawi described suicide operations as a legitimate defense against the enemy who attacks the Palestinian people, and who has no mercy on the elderly, women or children… On a previous occasion, on May 27, 1998, Sheik Tantawi stated: ‘It is every Muslim, Palestinian and Arab’s right to blow himself up in the heart of Israel, an honorable death is better than a life of humiliation. All religious laws have demanded the use of force against the enemy and fighting against those who stand by Israel; there is no escape from fighting, from Jihad, and from [self-]defense, and whoever refrains from such things is not a believer.'”
Al-Shawi added that, in his opinion, there is no contradiction between the ruling of the Saudi Mufti and those of Sheik Tantawi of Al-Azhar, Sheik Qarashawi and the Palestinian scholars, since the Saudi Mufti’s ruling refers to the principles of Shari’a in times of peace, and not in a state of war, as is currently the case.[10]
[8] Sut Al-Ama (Egypt), April 26, 2001. [quoted in Al-Hayat (London-Beirut), April 27, 2001.]
[9] Al-Quds (PA), August 17, 1998.
[10] Al-Hayat (London-Beirut), April 27, 2001.
It’s hard to take the Catholic Church’s rules seriously when they don’t take them seriously. The Jesuits have been a joke for decades, and the church has done nothing to rein them in.
Crowhill, the exact same thing can be said of Muslim “condemnations” of terrorism.
Joseph, please find the condemnations of the Jesuits that matches these condemnations against terrorism from the Moslems.
http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php
Aside from Malachi Martin’s book of the same title. I have not found the outcry amongst Catholics nor seen a vocal crackdown from the Vatican on the Jebbies.
Leon, we should propose a trade: the Jesuits to Islam for all those Middle Eastern Christians being persecuted under their auspices. It definitely would strengthen the Church…which, after all, is what Benedict supposedly wants?
a brief history of the Jesuits
http://matrix.scranton.edu/admissions/jeshist.html
Joseph, once again your accusations are based on unreliable sources. MEMRI is notoriously biased: co-founded by a former colonel in Israeli military intelligence and an Israeli neocon, it has been repeatedly accused of misrepresenting the materials it claims to be translating. The Wikipedia article on them is worth reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_East_Media_Research_Institute
and also this article from the Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/may/15/arabicunderfire
and these views from “the other side”:
http://www.infocusnews.net/content/view/15069/135/
http://www.washington-report.org/archives/April_2007/0704017.html
The Kressel article you cite is much more balanced, and I would urge you to read the whole thing instead of cherry-picking a couple of quotes out of it. For example, Kressel quotes Sheik ‘Ali Abu Al-Hassan, head of the Al Azhar University Fatwa Committee in Egypt, as specifically denying that the Quranic reference to “monkeys and pigs” has anything to do with the Jews of today.
Kressel also rightly points out that Christianity’s record of anti-Jewish rhetoric and behavior is far worse than Islam’s, and that much of the anti-Jewish polemic of modern Islam was imported from Christendom. If the Islamic world’s anti-Jewish attitudes and behavior brand Islam as a false religion, what does Christendom’s even worse record on the subject say about Christianity?
With regard to the rulings of Islamic authorities on suicide bombings: Assuming for the sake of argument that MEMRI has quoted and understood them correctly, how is their position any different from yours? You have defended the U.S. atomic bombings of civilians in Japan on the grounds that the U.S. was at war with Japan and had the right to target Japanese civilians in order to bring the war to a more rapid conclusion and thereby save American lives. The Palestinians and their Muslim allies are at war with Israel–by your logic they also have the right to target Israeli civilians in order to bring that war to a more rapid conclusion and thereby save Palestinian lives.
Wherein lies the difference?
Finally, Joseph, with regard to the differences between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam:
“Islam rejects the doctrines of atonement and redemption that define Christianity and Judaism.”
But Judaism also rejects the doctrines of atonement and redemption that define Christianity. Does that make Judaism a false religion?
“Islam also rejects the Christian doctrines of original sin and the necessity of mediation between God and humanity.”
But the majority opinion in Judaism also rejects original sin; and more importantly, Judaism emphatically rejects the kind of mediation that Christians postulate in the death of Jesus. As the Jewish Encyclopedia points out, the whole Christian doctrine on this point, as established by Augustine and held by western Christendom ever since, “is so foreign to the essential spirit of Judaism that it may serve to indicate the extreme point in the divergence of Christianity from its origin in Judaism.” Does that make Judaism a false religion?
“Judeo-Christian and Muslim concepts of divinity revolve around one irreconcilable difference … The one God of the Koran, the God Who demands submission is a distant God; to call him ‘Father’ would be an anthropomorphic sacrilege.”
Here’s another article that makes the same complaint, sometimes in almost identical language:
http://muslihoon.wordpress.com/2006/04/15/god-as-father-in-judaism-christianity-and-islam/
But note that this same article, following the same logic, also alleges as one of the faults of Islam that Allah does not deal with man directly, but only through mediators. So how is it that the same logic leads its critics to accuse Islam of both lacking the concept of mediation AND of placing too much reliance on mediators? This begins to look very much like a case of “any stick to beat my enemy with”.
Note also that this same argument draws on the common use of “abd” = “slave” in Muslim names as proof that Muslims have an inferior concept of the relationship between God and man. But how does St. Paul characterize his relationship with the divine? “Paul, a slave of Jesus Christ.”
As for the so-called “Judeo-Christian concept of divinity”, the single most important difference between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam in their conceptions of deity is the difference between God as a transcendent unity absolutely and irrevocably distinct from his creation (including created humanity), and the concept of God as a trinity in one of whose persons deity and humanity are inseparably united. In the conflict between those conceptions, Christianity stands on one side of the divide, while Judaism and Islam stand together on the other side. So if the differences in our conceptions of God are to be a determining factor, and if Christians are to reject other religions as false on that basis, then Christians would have to hold both Judaism and Islam to be false religions. In that case the whole notion of a “Judeo-Christian conception of God” would be nothing more than empty rhetoric–as, in fact, many Jews have been saying for a long time.
“if Christians are to reject other religions as false on that basis, then Christians would have to hold both Judaism and Islam to be false religions. In that case the whole notion of a “Judeo-Christian conception of God” would be nothing more than empty rhetoric–as, in fact, many Jews have been saying for a long time.”
The Apostle John states that he who denies Jesus Christ as the Son of God who came in the flesh is antiChrist.”The small “a” antichrist is only recorded in the Bible three times. The antichrist is anyone who denies that Jesus came in the flesh or that He was both man and God. By denying this, they also deny the Father and the Son, as stated by the apostle John in I John 2:22, “Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son.” As John says in I John 4:3, they were already living in his day as he testified, “but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.” Anyone who denies that Jesus is from God and did not come in the flesh is saying God is a liar (John 1:14). John says further, “I say this because many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist“(II John 1:7).”
Sardath, several points:
1. The Japanese formally declared war on the United States and the British Empire. Israel has not formally declared war against Arab and Palestinian populations as a whole.
2. Comprehensive genocide was not part of the Allies’ plans to defeat Japan; if it were, then Gen. MacArthur’s post-war occupation would have had a far, far different tenor. OTOH, comprehensive genocide is part of the Muslim strategy for dealing w/Israel.
3. I did not made the argument that Islam is a false religion. I made the argument that Allah is not Yahweh; that’s a completely different issue.
4. Christianity’s atittude and behavior toward Jews, indeed, was worse than Islam’s more than a millenium ago. It isn’t now; in fact, it’s the complete opposite.
5. Modern Islam’s anti-Semitic attitudes come not from Christianity but from Nazism and the Tsarist fabrication, “Protocols of the Elders of Zion.” In fact, Hitler cultivated the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem (who also advocated the slaughter of Jews) as an ally. The Waffen-SS, the military arm of the SS, created two Muslim divisions — one of which was responsible for murdering 90 percent of Yugoslavia’s Jewish population. Hitler himself greatly admired Islam and found it to be superior to Christianity.
6. Though Judaism rejects Jesus as Messiah, Judaism does not reject the necessity of atonement nor the notion of a Messiah. In fact, the sacrifices demanded by the Mosaic Law were designed to quench divine anger against sin. Without the shedding of blood, there’s no remission of sin, said the author of the Letter to the Hebrews, who demonstrated detailed knowledge of the purposes of those sacrifices. Jesus’ death on the cross, in which He shed blood, was meant to be the ultimate, perfect sacrifice for sin.
Regarding mediation, where in Islam does an imam serve the same purpose as a redeemer (Messiah) or a high priest (who, in Judaism, was the ultimate mediator in the Holy of Holies)..or even the role of the Catholic priest as a mediator of sacraments? That’s what Besancon was talking about.
Regarding St. Paul’s self-characterization as a “slave of Christ,” you cannot separate that from his conversion experience, in which Christ effectively conscripted him for service. Christ Himself said that “whom the Son sets free is free, indeed.” That freedom, among other things, is freedom from sin and death that Christ won through His crucifixion and resurrection. Where is the equivalent in Islam?
Moreover, Christian freedom asserts that humanity is created in God’s image…and since God is the ultimate free being in the universe, then human freedom is a divine gift and a divine right, despite it being marred by sin. Again, where is the equivalent in Islam?
Finally and most importantly, Allah’s arbitrary and capricious nature contract Yahweh’s just, holy, merciful and loving nature, which are a part of his quintessential purity. Such purity, by definition, cannot be arbitrary nor capricious.
“The Japanese formally declared war on the United States and the British Empire. Israel has not formally declared war against Arab and Palestinian populations as a whole.”
But formal declaration or no, they are in fact waging war on the Palestinian population as a whole; as a matter of international law, doing so without a formal declaration makes it worse, not better. We hanged people for such things after World War II, so why is it now OK if we and our friends do the same thing?
“comprehensive genocide is part of the Muslim strategy for dealing w/Israel”
If so, their governments have a very odd way of going about it: signing peace treaties with Israel, exchanging ambassadors with them, engaging in both open and secret arms trafficking with the Israeli government, allowing Israeli jets to overfly their territories when attacking other Muslim countries, and engaging in joint military maneuvers with Israel.
“I did not made the argument that Islam is a false religion. I made the argument that Allah is not Yahweh; that’s a completely different issue.”
If Allah is not Yahweh, then from a Christian perspective the Muslims are not worshipping the Creator, but rather giving the Creator’s due to someone or something else. Isn’t that the very definition of idolatry? And if so, how could institutionalized idolatry *not* be a false religion?
“Christianity’s atittude and behavior toward Jews, indeed, was worse than Islam’s more than a millenium ago. It isn’t now; in fact, it’s the complete opposite.”
Fine. So Muslims still have a way to go on this subject, just as Christians did a while back. If we were able to change, why can’t they? And if we were granted the space to do so instead of being wiped off the face of the earth by divine wrath, how can we not grant Muslims the same grace?
(And by the way, you don’t have to go back a whole millennium to find examples of Christian atrocities against Jews. Try a century or two, at most–and don’t forget the Holocaust.)
“Modern Islam’s anti-Semitic attitudes come not from Christianity but from Nazism and the Tsarist fabrication, ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion.’ ”
But Nazism is the bastard child of Christendom, and Nazi anti-Semitism built directly on and is derived in large measure from Christian anti-Semitism. As for the “Protocols”, it is the work of Christian traditionalists who aimed at identifying the Jews with revolutionary modernism, and thereby painting both as the enemies of church, crown, and country. It was first published in a magazine of the Russian “Black Hundreds” movement; you can see a picture of one of their religious processions here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Black-hundred1907.jpg
It’s a veritable sea of crosses, led by a member of the Russian Orthodox clergy. How can you say that Christianity is not responsible for that?
“Though Judaism rejects Jesus as Messiah, Judaism does not reject the necessity of atonement nor the notion of a Messiah.”
But it does reject any notion that the Messiah is a sacrificial victim whose shed blood makes possible the atonement. In fact, since the destruction of the Temple almost two millennia ago, Judaism has rejected blood sacrifice entirely. As the Jewish Encyclopedia says: “the Jewish teachers, after the hope for the rebuilding of the Temple in the second century had ended in failure and woe, strove to develop and deepen the Atonement idea. R. Akiba, in direct opposition to the Christian Atonement by the blood of Jesus, addressed his brethren thus: ‘Happy are ye, Israelites. Before whom do you cleanse yourselves, and who cleanses you? Your Father in heaven; for it is said: I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean …’ This doctrine, which does away with all mediatorship of either saint, high priest, or savior, became the leading idea of the Jewish Atonement.” And it remains so to this day.
“Regarding mediation, where in Islam does an imam serve the same purpose as a redeemer (Messiah) or a high priest (who, in Judaism, was the ultimate mediator in the Holy of Holies)..or even the role of the Catholic priest as a mediator of sacraments?”
Probably nowhere, at least in the theological mainstream. But as I showed above, even before Islam came along mainstream Judaism had already reached the same conclusion: no blood sacrifices, no mediators, no high priest, no savior, no atonement except what God himself metes out. So if this is a mark against Islam, it is also a mark against Judaism, which once again we find ranged on the other side of the divide–with Islam, and against Christianity.
“Christian freedom asserts that humanity is created in God’s image…and since God is the ultimate free being in the universe, then human freedom is a divine gift and a divine right, despite it being marred by sin.”
Perhaps. But a huge swath of the western tradition is against you on this, from Augustine through Luther and Calvin to today’s Christian fundamentalists, who believe that God made up lists of the saved and the damned before he even began to create the world, and that there is absolutely nothing you can do, good or bad, to get your name moved from one list to the other.
(And don’t forget the dominionists and other right-wing theocrats who are rapidly taking possession of the American political system with the expressed intention of turning the entire country into a fetid theocratic swamp complete with stonings, witch-burnings, heresy trials, enslavement for debt, and manifold other sorts of draconian brutality that they would decry as barbaric and inhumane if it were practiced by anyone else.)
Ironically, one of the arguments often made by Muslims in favor of Islam is that (unlike Christianity) it leaves men free to act before God on their own behalf instead of weighing them down with hierarchies and intermediaries, sacraments and liturgies, “counsels of perfection” that are too difficult for most people to obey, and a divinely ordained predestination that encourages antinomianism at one extreme and despair at the other. In Islam, every man is responsible for his own eternal destiny, and on the day of judgment everyone will “receive good or evil according to what he has done in the body”–which, by the way, is a quote from 2 Corinthians, not the Quran.
“Finally and most importantly, Allah’s arbitrary and capricious nature contract Yahweh’s just, holy, merciful and loving nature, which are a part of his quintessential purity. Such purity, by definition, cannot be arbitrary nor capricious.”
Again, Muslims argue exactly the opposite. The Muslim God is indeed absolutely free (isn’t that exactly what you said above about the Christian God?), but this freedom is neither arbitrary nor capricious, because it is of the essence of his nature to be both merciful and just. (Surely you know that the Quran itself begins, “in the name of Allah, the Merciful, the Compassionate”!)
On the other hand, the “Judeo-Christian” Bible–and even more so the Christian religion which claims to be built upon it–seems to positively revel in God’s arbitrariness and capriciousness. “As it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated. … So then he has mercy upon whomever he wills, and he hardens the heart of whomever he wills.” Doesn’t that sound kind of “arbitrary and capricious” to you?
Sardath, for the ‘origin’ of the Protocols ,you need to look at the Talmud.
“The War Against Catholics” by William Michael Peters is a good springboard for further research.
http://www.johnthebaptist.us/jbw_english/documents/books/rjmi/br28_evil_good.pdf
Mary, the web site you referenced is not exactly a reliable source. Among other things, they are geocentrists (i.e., they believe that the earth is the immovable center of the universe, contrary to all scientific evidence) and they deny the reality of the holocaust (contrary to all historical evidence). The particular document you link to is appallingly anti-Semitic and quotes extensively from the fraudulent “Protocols” as if they were genuine. Why would you expect us to trust anything these people say?
Sardath, several points:
You said that the fact that Arab governments are “signing peace treaties with Israel, exchanging ambassadors with them,” etc. mitigates my argument about comprehensive genocide as a goal.
First, the only governments that have signed such treaties are Egypt, Jordan and Turkey — and Turkey is drawing closer to Iran and away from Israel. Turkey and Israel no longer have joint military exercises. Moreover, sentiment is growing in Egypt to renounce its treaty w/Israel.
Second, the governments that made these agreements and arrangements are or were secular. Nations like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Lebanon have not signed peace treaties w/Israel. Moreover, if comprehensive genocide isn’t the ultimate goal, then why hasn’t the Muslim world condemned and ostracized Ahmadinejad for his stated goal of wiping Israel off the map?
Regarding the Israeli treatment of Palestinians, all that would change if Hamas and Hezbollah renounced their aims of eliminating the Jewish State. Israel’s government has tried to work w/the Palestinians for peace (see Oslo, 1993), unlike the Japanese government’s dealings w/the United States from 1941-45. However, when Arafat was offered what he wanted by the Clinton Administration, he rejected it in favor of more of the intifada.
You say that if Allah is not Yahweh, then Islam is a false religion. All religions are “true,” insofar as they authentically reflect their own beliefs. But all religions are not equal, nor do they reflect divine revelation as Judaism and Christianity do. Regardless of whatever similarities Islam and Christianity have, their differences render them incompatible.
Regarding Judaism and atonement: The fact that much of Judaism rejects blood atonement doesn’t mean that 1)the Mosaic Law regarding such atonement didn’t exist 2)Jews reject atonement as a necessary step of repentance before God. The question isn’t whether atonement is necessary; the question is how it’s expressed. You have yet to show how Muslims practice atonement, which has been defined as divine initiative (whether Jewish or Christian).
Regarding Christianity and freedom, it’s important to remember that the modern concepts of human freedom developed after Augustine’s, Luther’s and Calvin’s day. European Christianity, in fact, has been unduly influenced by its relationship to (and, all too often, reliance upon) the state, especially in terms of financial and social support. The vast majority of European states were monarchies until the 20th century, when Fascism and Communism reared their heads. The fact that “Western tradition” is “against me” doesn’t necessarily make that tradition right.
BTW, if you seriously believe that “dominionists and right-wing theocrats” make up a substantial force in American politics, then you have been duped by fear-mongers. I know of no politically or theologically conservative Christian who wants to employ the policies you cite. Yes, Rushdoony is a loony but he and his Christian Reconstructionists are a distinct minority who have no support in mainstream evangelical thought. You have to prove to me that conservative Protestants and Republicans want to impose the policies you cite.
You claim that Yahweh is arbitrary and capricious on the basis of one verse. Why did God “hate” Esau? Because Esau rejected any sort of relationship with or submission to God. He even sold his spiritual birthright for lentil soup! Jacob, though not much better in terms of scheming, at least was open to the influence of God in his life. Esau was not.
Besides, if Allah is “merciful and compassionate,” then how does Islam justify this?
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/06/ibn-warraq-the-westminster-institute-virginia-educating-the-public-and-government-about-the-ideology-4.html#more
The Old and New Testaments describe God as faithful to His covenants, incapable of deceit, profoundly merciful, tender and loving, and profoundly just and righteous. Justice, righteousness, mercy, tenderness and love cannot, by definition, co-exist w/caprice and arbitrariness.
Moreover, Yahweh is a god of grace, unmerited favor, which He shows to encourage repentance. What is Allah’s equivalent?
Finally, while the institutionalized church engaged in anti-Semitism for centuries, Nazi anti-Semitism belonged to a fundamentally racist world view in which “inferior races” (Jews, Slavs, Africans, Poles, Russians, Gypsies) could not be redeemed, only destroyed. Besides, the Nazis also were virulently anti-Christian. Martin Bormann, one of Hitler’s most important aides, said that “National Socialism and Christianity are irreconcilable.”
Joseph, you claimed that “comprehensive genocide is part of the Muslim strategy for dealing w/Israel”, as if there were a single monolithic strategy that all Muslims subscribe to. But if that were the case, then Muslim countries should never have done any of the things I listed–and yet clearly they have. That proves that in fact there is no single approach that can fairly be described as “THE Muslim strategy for dealing with Israel”. Instead, there are a broad range of strategies being employed by different groups of Muslims in different countries, ranging from de facto military alliances (Turkey and to some extent Jordan) to peaceful and mutually beneficial coexistence (Egypt) to armed truce (Syria) to rhetorical hostility (Iran and a number of others) to low-level insurgency and harassment (PLO, Hamas, Hezbollah).
At the moment, not a single Muslim country is actively engaged in large-scale hostilities with Israel, nor is there any sign that any Muslim country seriously wants to initiate such hostilities. Some of them, such as Lebanon and Syria, have in fact allowed themselves to be used as punching bags for Israel’s military exploits in recent years, neither retaliating for attacks on their territory nor even (in Syria’s case) publicly protesting them. This is not quite how one expects “genocidal maniacs” (to use your expression from a while back) to behave when dealing with those they supposedly intend to exterminate.
To say that Israel’s mistreatment of Palestinians would stop “if Hamas and Hezbollah renounced their aims of eliminating the Jewish State” is ludicrous. The PLO did exactly that, and look what it got them: 40% of the West Bank has now been either incorporated into the State of Israel or placed under permanent Israeli occupation–and even after all that, the mistreatment of Palestinians continues.
You say that “all religions are ‘true,’ insofar as they authentically reflect their own beliefs”. By that definition, Satanism is a true religion as well. Do you really want to defend that position?
You say, “The question isn’t whether atonement is necessary; the question is how it’s expressed. You have yet to show how Muslims practice atonement …”; and you ask, “if Allah is ‘merciful and compassionate,’ then how does Islam justify this?”
Atonement in Islam works the same way it does in modern Judaism: not by blood sacrifices, but by prayer and good works. According to the Hadith, no sin can cling to one who prays five times a day: “By the grace of Allah, it washes away all sins,” and “When a Muslim offers his prayer to please Allah, his sins fall away from him like leaves falling off a tree.” And again: “Compassionate almsgiving extinguishes sin as water extinguishes fire.”
You say that God’s preference for Jacob over Esau was not arbitrary, and in fact was justified because there was no room for God in Esau’s life whereas there was in Jacob’s. But as far as we can see from the text, there was little room for God in Jacob’s life either, until God pounded some into him. And even then, when the two brothers finally meet again, poor “godless” Esau behaves toward the wily and paranoid Jacob like a veritable Christian: greeting him with open arms, weeping over him, and trying to return the ridiculous bribes that Jacob had thrown in his face in an effort to buy his favor. By every indication of character we have, not only was Esau a better man than Jacob in the beginning; he remained a better man than Jacob even after all those years of God working with Jacob to try to improve him.
And yet: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” And if you read carefully Paul’s use of that verse in Romans 9, it is precisely intended to vindicate God’s right to be as arbitrary and capricious as he pleases with his own creation: “Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?” In essence Paul is saying that because God created us, he has every right to use us as chamber pots if he wishes to do so.
Finally, you say: “Besides, the Nazis also were virulently anti-Christian. Martin Bormann, one of Hitler’s most important aides, said that ‘National Socialism and Christianity are irreconcilable.'” But the fact that the Nazis were virulently anti-Christian did not preclude them from learning and adopting a great deal from the more disturbing elements of Christendom–including the virulent anti-Semitism that pervaded Christianity from the early centuries all the way down to modern times.
And whatever may have been believed by Bormann (who was, after all, extraordinarily loony even by comparison with other high-level Nazis), many others believed that National Socialism and Christianity were not only compatible but even destined for each other by divine intention. For example Karl Adam, one of Ratzinger’s favorite theologians, once opined (as historian Guenter Lewy put it) that “not only were National Socialism and Catholicism not in conflict one with the other, but belonged together as nature and grace.”
Regarding the growing power of theocrats in American politics, read:
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2003/03/0079525
(Note especially that one of the world leaders described by this group as a “good friend” is Yoweri Museveni, the president of Uganda, who supported a proposal to institute the death penalty for homosexuals.)
And also this:
http://www.discernment-ministries.org/ChristianImperialism.htm
and this:
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2011/1/3/122613/0240
and this:
http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v08n1/chrisre3.html
As these articles point out, Rushdoony-style dominionists are not the only players in the theocratic game, and not even the most important; but dominionist ideology has now pervaded a significant swath of American evangelicalism. For example, there is the “New Apostolic Reformation”, which now claims to have as many churches as the Southern Baptist Convention. And guess who is associated with the NAR? Sarah Palin, who the Republicans tried to place one heartbeat away from the presidency last time around:
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/10/25/232448/85
and:
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/9/5/114652/6239
And the third-largest political party in the U.S. is the Constitution Party, whose stated goal is “is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations”–which, if taken literally, would lead to exactly the sort of atrocities I described.
Okay Sardath , That was a quick look up link. How about the Maurice Pinay site? that name was taken by ten Cardinals who wrote ,’The Plot Against the Church’.i was acquainted with the late Fr Malachi Martin , a prolific author ,he was also considered at one time the Vatican Scriptural scholar. He worked for Cardinal Bea during Vatican Council II and was charges with the duty to consult with B’nai Brith in NYC during the Council and keep them aprised of the decesions put forth therein. later, he requested laicization from PPVI and it was granted. i was told while he was hospitalized several FBI made a visit to his room and told him that they had been assigned to ,”follow him”. The reason given was that Cardinal Bea himself made frequent visits to the USA under a pseudonymn and with false documents. They were inquiring if Malachi could shed light on the deceased Cardinal’s activities. Bea was a member of the Propaganda Due Masonic Lodge in Italy.In 1976 the equivalent of our FBI in Italy raided that Lodge. you really should research the difference between the Talmud and the Torah before you call anyone’s accusations antisemetic. the Talmud is quite another animal and it’s followers are anything but religious Jews. The Novus Ordo Mass, which has done much to destroy Catholicism, has a distinct and undeniable similarity to the Talmudic table blessing. The Kabala’s rituals can be found in the Talmud.
http://mauricepinay.blogspot.com/2007/03/talmudic-touch-real-story-of-offertorys.html
http://www.catholicvoice.co.uk/pinay/
http://www.henrymakow.com/father_john_oconnor_-_on_the_m.html
http://catholicism.org/catholic-world-of-fahey.html
Perhaps this article and it’s links will be helpful to you
http://www.henrymakow.com/fr_denis_fahey_-_conspiracy.html
Mary, Malachi Martin was a complete charlatan, and nothing he said, wrote, or (allegedly) did can be taken at face value. See, for example:
http://angelqueen.org/articles/07_06_martin_ajc_connection.shtml
http://www.revisionisthistory.org/wire3.html
http://www.amazon.com/Clerical-Error-Robert-Blair-Kaiser/dp/0826415229/
http://www.angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=14459
http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13066
http://angelqueen.org/articles/07_02_martin_wilson.shtml
From all this it is abundantly clear that Malachi Martin was a pathological liar (and in fact quite likely a sociopath) who told people whatever nonsense he thought would get them on his side and permit him to do whatever it was he wanted to do at the time. He is not even remotely reliable as a source for anything–even the details of his own life and views.
I am familiar with the history of Propaganda Due in Italy. P-2 was a covert right-wing organization with ties to organized crime, Italian military and intelligence agencies, conservative Italian politicians, right-wing military governments in Latin America, and conservative elements in the Vatican. Its goal was to stage a right-wing takeover of the Italian government, to be followed by the destruction of leftist political parties and labor unions. P-2 and its allies are absolutely the last people in the world who would have been interested in subverting traditional Catholicism or instituting any kind of “liberal” reform; and since Cardinal Bea was himself well-known for his liberal leanings, it is highly unlikely that he would have had any sympathy for their aims, or they for his.
The complaint about the “table blessings” in the Mass is simply silly. The early Church adopted numerous prayers from the synagogue and used them for centuries, and some of these also begin “Blessed are you O Lord, King of the universe …” (See, for example, the prayer of gratitude for creation found in the Apostolic Constitutions, Book 7, chapter 34.)
As for the differences between the Torah and the Talmud, I am well aware of them, since I have studied both of them extensively and can read them in the original languages when necessary. I am also well aware that those who follow the Talmud are indeed “religious Jews”. I happen to know quite a number of them well enough to be reasonably assured of their actual beliefs and practices, and they are nothing like the monsters depicted in the stuff you read.
The Pinay book you recommend is straight from the pit of hell. Note, for example, chapter 41, which implies that the Nazis were perfectly within their rights to inflict a holocaust upon the Jews of Europe, but went too far when they attacked others with less justification. I find this appalling beyond words. How can any Christian possibly take such a position?
The other sources you cite aren’t quite as awful as the Pinay book, but they are so thoroughly delusional that they can’t be taken seriously. “Fr. Fahey studied the Protocols of the Learned Elders Zion and recognized it as the evil blueprint for a New World Order.” If, after studying the Protocols, Fahey was unable to see it for the forgery that it truly is, then he had no discernment whatever, and everything else he said on the subject has to be considered equally questionable.
Islam is the religion entirely invented by one man, Mohammed, in order to subsume and supplant both Judaism and Christianity. He discarded the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, denied the divinity of Christ and demoted Christ to mere prophet under himself. Mohammed’s religion operates out of the fallen flesh nature….attempting to accomplish by might and effort what only GOD, Father, Son, Holy Spirit can do by His power and grace.
There is no forgiveness or mercy in Islam, just punishment. Muslims demote woman as well…for them, woman is only a vehicle of pleasure and convenience, even in their idea of paradise. It is a religion of conquest, domination, violence, misogyny and constant conflict.
Mohammed’s religion produces the opposite fruit than that of the Holy Spirit, the opposite of the Character of Jesus Christ.
Nations ruled by Islam are never at peace. There is no freedom and joy.
The same violent evil spirit that rules Islam can also operate in Christians and Churches. Even within Western nations and churches, only when we are ruled by Christ, is there the fruit of the Holy Spirit. Otherwise, we produce the same fruit as Islam, lies, lust, greed, disunity, conflict and death.
CCC#841 comes dangerously close to syncretism.
Please forgive my evidently offensive, but sincere prior comment. Here is a video at First Things, a Catholic blog that may be helpful to your conversation and determination about Islam:
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2011/06/29/can-you-be-both-a-muslim-and-a-christian/#comments
Whitestone, you and Joseph are both playing the same “apples and oranges” game, defining Islam by its worst examples and Christianity by its best in an attempt to show the intrinsic superiority of Christianity over Islam. But by reversing the roles, one could just as easily portray Christianity as a religion born in hell and Islam as the one true faith for all mankind. This kind of strategy may be an effective ploy in win-at-any-cost apologetics, but it doesn’t bring us any nearer to the truth of the matter.
The statement that there is no forgiveness or mercy in Islam is flatly untrue, as a perusal of mainstream Muslim religious literature easily shows.
The accusation that Muslims treat women badly can be aimed just as readily at historical Christianity; just read what some of the Fathers have to say on the subject, if nothing else.
The claim that nations ruled by Islam never know peace, freedom, or joy is ludicrous to anyone who knows a little history. Some nations ruled by Muslims have indeed been hellholes, but then so have some (many?) nations ruled by Christians. As you admit, a spirit of violence and evil can operate in Christian nations just as it can in Muslim ones, so wherein lies the difference?
As for the First Things video: According to the speaker, the fact that Muslims worship a unitarian God and Christians worship a trinitarian God means that Muslims and Christians don’t worship the same God. But then why doesn’t the fact that Jews worship a unitarian God and Christians worship a trinitarian God mean that Jews and Christians don’t worship the same God? As the old saying goes, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
The Jews claimed to possess a unique revelation of God to man. Then Christians came along and started a new religion roughly based on Judaism, but “correcting” it in accord with what they believed to be a better revelation–a revelation and correction which Jews vehemently reject. Then Muslims came along and started a new religion roughly based on Christianity, but “correcting” it in accord with what they believed to be an even better revelation–a revelation and correction which Christians vehemently reject.
This puts Christians in a bad position. If they reject in principle the notion that revelation can be improved upon, that rids them of Islam but also makes Christianity itself untenable. But if they accept in principle that revelation can be improved upon, then that opens the door to the Muslim claim that their revelation–coming as it did at the end of the sequence–must be the best of the three. Christians can, of course, assert that Islam’s claim is untenable because the Christian revelation is the final and unalterable one which precludes any further improvements; but then Jews can just as easily make the same claim on behalf of Judaism–and what argument can Christians offer to the contrary that cannot also be taken up by Muslims in their cause?
Mr. Whitestone, your first comment was not offensive; it was true…every word of it! Would that more Christians (especially Catholics and liberal Protestants) viewed Islam in the same way.
All of you, for a good perspective on Islam, look at the writings of Jewish theologian Franz Rosenzweig and his disciple (of a sort), David Goldman, one of the editors of First Things.