Apparently no one within Catholicism is going to say out loud that the letter was heavy handed on the theme that God is one which to them means that He does not have a Son. We say with Christ that he who sees the Father sees the Son and that they are distinct but not separate.
So the 138 quote Christ in such a way that He seems to be saying what they believe. In the beginning, middle and end of the letter, Mark is quoted wherein Christ quotes Deuteronomy's rendition of the 1st commandment so that in effect, the letter has Christ say repeatedly "Hear oh Israel...the Lord is one." Had they only cited it once, one's suspicions of a subtext would not arise. But they cite Christ or the Deuteronomy passages on its own 8 times while for 10 pages in the PDF version they repeatedly cite their own passages on the same idea.
Basically...the letter carries this alleged hidden message from bow to stern and perhaps the Vatican smells that and feels they are dealing with a stereo personality behind the letter....is the message peace or the Oneness and non Trinitarian nature of God. Read the letter and ask yourself which message is more prominent.
[Bill:] Apparently no one within Catholicism is going to say out loud that the letter was heavy handed on the theme that God is one which to them means that He does not have a Son.
Granted, it's a Muslim document putting forth a Muslim reading of Christian scriptures. I wouldn't expect them to say otherwise -- and I don't think the signatories to the letter are oblivious that Christians will read those same passages differently.
Basically...the letter carries this alleged hidden message from bow to stern and perhaps the Vatican smells that and feels they are dealing with a stereo personality behind the letter....is the message peace or the Oneness and non Trinitarian nature of God. Read the letter and ask yourself which message is more prominent.
I know what you mean. (Actually, I appended a new section to the post with some personal thoughts). There seems to be a tension between the strict Muslim insistence of absolute monotheism throughout the letter and the call for peace ("let not our differences cause hatred and strife between us") and the closing recognition of religious pluralism:
For each We have appointed a law and a way. Had God willed He could have made you one community. But that He may try you by that which He hath given you (He hath made you as ye are). So vie one with another in good works. Unto God ye will all return, and He will then inform you of that wherein ye differ
Which is a somewhat unexpected and innovative conclusion (Allah's sanction upon our temporal differences).
Mona Charen, "About that Muslim Letter to the Pope" (Oct. 19, 2007), mentions the elephant in the room, which nobody seems to want to talk about. Having said that, I'm nonetheless glad for the dialogues taking place, though I think it's silly when people lose sight of history as well of contemporary global realities amidst their ebullient giddiness over a few exchanged token gestures. Pray God they may become more than that.
Seeing as how the two authorities on Islamic-Christian relations: Christian Troll, SJ and Samir Khalil Samir -- both close to Pope Benedict XVI and neither of whom can be accused of "losing sight of history" -- have offered critical praise of this document as a step forward, I'm not sure it can be so casually dismissed as a mere "token gesture."
See also: Fr. Christian Troll - Response to "A Common Word" for a continuation of the discussion.
Anything that involves talking on matters of common interest is to be welcomed, especially if it is likely to foster freedom of religion ( the recognition that people can change their religion without legal penalties or oppression), or reciprocity ( churches in Mecca as well as mosques in Rome). However I cannot see any Christian being prepared to have any dialogue on question such as the Incarnation or the Blessed Trinity. But better relations are possible, indeed necessary. Christian and Jews agree to differ on many fundamental points.
Frankly, I wonder what such dialogues can contribute. Unlike Frederick, I don't see them fostering freedom of religion or reciprocity. Injuctions against the former are part and parcel of Muslim theology. Injuctions against the latter are maintained by governments favorable to Islam and won't change unless the fundamental nature of those governments changes.
Besides, did any Catholic in this discussion mention the two-ton pink elephant in the room, jihadist terrorism? Islamic religious authorities have yet to issue fatwas against bin Laden, Zarahiri, suicide bombing, Ahmadinejad and the activities of Hamas and Hezbollah.
The fact that Catholic and Muslim leaders see eye-to-eye on sexual issues is irrelevant (and, given how women are treated in the Muslim world, terrifying). Islam's relationship to the rest of the world (let alone to other religions) cannot be sorted out until that issue is dealt with (i.e., until Muslim religious authorities are held responsible for the behavior of the terrorists they fail or refuse to censure). That's a lot easier to say than to do, obviously. Perhaps a start would be to refuse all dialogue with any Muslim scholars until the authorities at al-Azhar -- the most prestigious seminary in the Sunni world -- issue the kind of fatwas I suggested against Sunni terrorists.
The fundamental point about Catholic-Muslim dialogue should be this: You cannot have civilized dialogue with people who are not civilized. Diplomatically speaking, the point cannot be made that directly, but it needs to be made somehow.
What I meant by "that issue" was jihadist terrorism, not sexual issues.
Thanks for this fascinating round-up. I agree that the Muslim letter is rather arrogant: everyone knows that Islam is predicated on a complete rejection of the Trinity (not merely of crude anthropomorphic accounts of it, or of speculative extrapolations, but of the very idea of any kind of distinction of hypostases or modes of subsistence in the deity). If Catholics were to issue an appeal to dialogue to Muslims calling on them to embrace Catholic doctrines, it would be immediately seen as arrogant.
Frankly it bothers me when a Pope visits the UN...talk of the beast of Bablyon! Is that statue of Zeus still in the lobby of that weird shaped building..the UN should be on an island somewhere and the US should be not a full member but an observer..since its inception back in 1945..with the help of Alger Hiss..the free world has gotten smaller,constant no win wars and child abuse is rampant...
" Islamic religious authorities have yet to issue fatwas against bin Laden, Zarahiri, suicide bombing, Ahmadinejad and the activities of Hamas and Hezbollah."
Totally false; they've been issuing fatwas against Al Qaeda left and right since 9/11 and even before.
See:
http://www.juancole.com/2005/07/...-again-
and.html
http://www.muhajabah.com/
othersc...herscondemn.php
Regarding a dialogue between Christians and Moslems, here is a thought that goes to the core of the problme.
The WHY? of Terrorism in Islam
I am an American living in Asia. I am not Moslem, but I am a writer and historian. I would like to share some information with you: information concerning Moslem terrorism. It may help you understand what is going on in the Middle East, as well as significant parts of Africa, Asia, Europe, and even the United States. This is important because Moslem terrorism has already struck the United States; I am certain it will do so again; next time you and your loved ones, as well as a vast number of other innocent victims could be caught up in the violence.
Disregarding the social and economic factors that serve as underpinnings for Islamic terrorism, I will address the more fundamental issue: the religious teachings that sanction violence against non-Moslems… And against all women! Here are seven verses from the Koran. These scriptures have been translated into modern English.
…murder, crucify, or cut off the hands and feet of non-Moslems…Chapter 5 Verse 33 - The Koran
…create terror in the hearts of non-Moslems …cut off their heads…Chapter 8 Verse 12 - The Koran
…and fight non-Moslems until Allah’s religion is the only one…Chapter 8 Verse 39 - The Koran
…of all the loot you plunder from non-Moslems, 20% belongs to Allah and to Mohammed. Chapter 8 Verse 41- The Koran (Author’s note: Loot included kidnapped female sex-slaves.) …Take as many as four wives from the women you are sexually attracted to … Chapter 4 Verse 3 - The Koran
…God has made men superior to women… Virtuous women are obedient. If a woman becomes disobedient, beat her. Chapter 4 Verse 34 - The Koran
…When it comes to marriage, Allah makes it legal for you to take as wives, women whom your right hand possesses. Chapter 33 Verse 50 - The Koran (Author’s note: This verse talks about the “loot” non-Moslems call… kidnapped female sex-slaves.)
Most people in the western world have never heard of these astonishing scriptures, but they are in the Koran … along with a relatively short list of others, just like them. This is important because not all Moslems are the same; there are two very different types. Militant Moslems view these verses as commandments from God. They think they apply to life in the Twenty-first Century and they try to use them, regardless of the suffering and mayhem they create, whereas moderate Moslems ignore such verses because they were uttered a long time ago: when the Arabian peninsula, from whence Islam came, was a very primitive place.
Historians tell us these terrorist teachings are part of a cluster of ferocious beliefs that were deliberately added to one specific part of the formerly peaceful and tolerant Koran. These changes were done years after the faith was first organized. In fact, historians also tell us Islam didn’t simply fall from the sky as a full-blown religion, but rather evolved from a persecuted sect of Jewish-Christians. The first Moslems were actually part of a larger group of Jesus’ followers called the Ebionites.
Ebionites were peace-loving disciples of Christ, who shared their wealth with fellow believers, and taught that a man should marry only one wife. In fact, women were much more independent in the Ebionite-days of Islam. They were more influential too. I say this because my research has determined that the first prophet of Islam may have been someone other than Mohammed: I believe the first prophet was a very special woman named Khadija the Pure. Khadija was Mohammed’s first and only wife for twenty-four years. She was his former employer and Khadija was fifteen years older than Mohammed. She was also an influential Arabian princess who was extremely wealthy. Even though Khadija was part of the royal family that controlled worship in the all-important Kabba Temple, with its 300+ pagan gods and goddesses, she became an Ebionite Christian.
After Khadija’s death, Islam was hijacked by a cartel of corrupt men. New beliefs were added, old beliefs were deleted or relegated to unimportance, and the religion was changed beyond recognition. In the end, Islam abandoned many of its Ebionite Jewish-Christian teachings and turned cruel and predatory; women suffered the most: they became the focus of repression, scorn, and violence.
Today, although moderate Moslems are loath to admit these facts, and many of them are terrified to voice criticism of their militant Islamic brothers, because of fear that violence will come to them and their families, the fact remains that these added teachings are not the original beliefs of Islam; they are amendments: They are the terrorist teachings of Islam.
In the near future, militant Moslems hope to unleash a series of unimaginable calamities upon the United States and the rest of the world. Because the terrorist teachings of Islam sanction deception, treaty breaking, and war, as well as looting, murder, kidnapping, terrorism, and human slavery (including sexual slavery), so long as these crimes are directed against non-Moslems, there is no limit to the things these fanatics can do. But the scariest part: Militant Moslems will do everything… in the name of God (Allah). If they die while committing these crimes against humanity, they believe Allah will bless them and give them seventy virgin brides as an eternal reward for their brutality.
Are you are interested in learning more about an array of Islamic topics including: Khadija the Pure, the Seventy Virgins, or militant Moslem terrorism and its involvement in modern human slavery? Visit The Moslem Institute website: www.TheMoslemInstitute.com
Replies to Dane Dahl can be directed to the following email address: historian@themosleminstitute.com, or to the following mail drop in the United States: Dane Dahl, P.O. Box 190 #04073, Jefferson, OR 97352.
All the best,
Dane Dahl
Please forward this message to a friend.
Am I missing the point or does this exercise amount to little more than an effort to win Christian endorsement for Islam as a peaceful religion, because it has peaceful people within it, while the extremists just carry on as before?
When people take religious teachings literally and use them as a vehicle for hatred there are always plenty of moderates ready to accuse the extremists of perverting the faith and to argue that this manifestation of it is a perversion or heresy (or must be interpreted according to the history of the time). You all do it.
So, on the basis of this dialogue, are Christians and Muslims going to agree that the followers of both faiths secure entrance to heaven and God's favour? Or is each side going to continue to believe that the other is dragging souls down to eternal damnation and should be resisted to prevent more souls being needlessly damned?
I find it odd that either side can have people who truly believe in its faith yet who are simultaneously able to be full or love, tolerance and admiration for those who are trying to spread a belief that denies their own.
The point The Moslem Institute is stressing is the historically based premise that Islam began as a persecuted sect of Christianity. None of the violent teachings that militant Moslems love to quote came from the Mecca Period of Islamic history. Khadija the Pure (the first prophet of Islam?) was alive for this entire time. All of the violent teachings came from the Medina Period of Islamic history--after Khadija died. Following her death, the faith was hijacked by a cartel of corrupt men. In many ways it was changed beyond recognition.
Issues touching on: who will gain entrance into heaven, or who will incur God's favor, are are not the bailiwick of historians such as myself. I will leave such weighty questions to the Almighty.
Commenting by HaloScan
