Great post Christopher !
Your indepth analysis and copious links to original source documents are a great asset.
The Holy Father said :-
"Interreligious and intercultural dialogue between Christians and Muslims cannot be reduced to an optional extra. It is, in fact, a vital necessity, on which in large measure our future depends"
God Bless
I don't know whether Islam is reformable in the sense that we want it to be reformable. Since Islam is--we believe--a HUMAN phenomenon, there is always reason to hope that it is reformable and that dialog with Islam can be fruitful. I myself love Muslims and have a fruitful, friendly relationship with many of them in which I am very understanding of their feelings and sensitivities. And I see noble aspects in Islam that give me hope.
But I must say, Christopher, that you do very little justice to Robert Spencer's presentation of Islam. Bob has been a friend of mine for many years and I feel perfectly free to disagree with him on this issue. I don't myself have a fixed opinion one way or another on it. But what I CAN say is that you and many other critics of Bob's writing have not bothered to to understand it well before rejecting it.
(continued)
What Bob sets out to demonstrate in essence is the following:
1. Islam's holy book, the Quran, does not just contain couple of verses recommending violence, but features the violent subjugation of unbelievers in a way that the Old Testament simply does not. And that violence is not part of a limited campaign against one tribe or other, but is directed at a universal mission that is always valid.
2. Islam has traditionally understood the only way of interpreting the Quran to be through the Ahadith, the collected sayings of the Prophet Mohammed and his commentary on God's revelation. The Ahadith strongly reinforce this theme of violent subjugation.
3. All the major schools of Islam under which Muslims live today teach that Islam has a mandate to subjugate non-Muslims to the rule of Islam, through force of arms if necessary. The traditional and fundamental meaning of jihad is not "interior" struggle, but war, and all the traditional teachers say that the duty of Muslim nation is to wage offensive as well as defensive jihad against unbelievers--if there is the strength and opportunity to do so.
4. The history of Islam is not characterized by the occasional bursts of relative tolerance such as that shown by the Ottomans toward Jews expelled from Spain. Such tolerance was rare, of limited scope and usually at the behest of as strong ruler and almost always encountered resistance from the vast majority of clerics. In fact, the overwelming history of Islam is that of aggressive and bloody subjection of other nations that is simply unparalleled.
(continued)
the fringe of the fringe
Excellent roundup - and positioning of questions. Hopefully, the resposes are many and engaging.
Should one simply yield to one's informed opinion to one's betters?
I've read and carefully considered most of your references - still am not convinced that Islam is "reformable" (to what? by what standard?).
Being Catholic, does that make me hostile to a Vatican stance on things?
Question - can one answer your questions while bracketing the issue of the status of Christian minorities in islamic countries? That concern seems to drive much of the the Vatican's position.
Question - isn't Islam, bottom-line, still a Jewish and/or Christian heresy? Suppose, my irritation comes from considering Islam as an "equal" Abrahamic partner.
Question - in dialoguing with Islam one must eventually come down to particulars. Are there particluar dimes that Islam simply will never move off from - and by not doing so, stop the dialoguing cold? What are those dimes?
Can Islam only become "moderate" (reformable) by accepting the gift of the West?
Your comments on Fr. N.'s latest over at First Things "blog".
I pray that Caldecott's point of view wins out.
But, throughout history, how often has reasonable, moderate, tolerant Islam been put forward (within Islam) and has been snuffed out?
That is an interesting history to explore.
What hope (evidence) is there that this time that particular candle will burn brightly within Islam and blaze to ash the dross?
If we're betting here, I would say that that candlelight will also be extinquished.
When in history has Islam accepeted the gift of the West and turned Islam into an enduring partner for civilization?
OK, I'll ask the other question - how is Islam a gift for the West?
____________________________________
Is it possible that the Jews truly did deceive us - that they told the story wrong about Isaac and Ishmael? Or in dialoguing with Isalm are we now to hold both versions as true and vital in the search for good fellowship?
How do we accept Islam theologically without parsing our way using a deconstructionist mode?
In these talks with Islam are insisting on Islam to reconsider any point of doctrine?
5. The life of the prophet Mohammed is considered to be a model of perfection to be imitated by all traditional Muslim schools. That life contains many elements which could be considered understandable if confined to the context of their time, but have powerful negative implications if considered a standard to be imitated for today. Early child marriage, slavery, and various forms of religious persecution of Christians and Jews are all very live issues among Muslims today and the weight of the consensus in Muslim and Islamizing lands is heavily against what the liberalizers among Muslims and some Christians would like.
6. There is certainly a considerable number of Muslims today who are trying to develop an alternative reading of their religion. Some of them are scholars. But they are a distinct minority, in fact, a fringe of a fringe. And they have great difficulty in formulating a theologically convincing alternative to traditional readings in conversations with Muslims who are conversant with the text and traditions of their religion because those texts and traditions are weighted so very heavily against them.
7. There are a far greater number of Muslims today who are in full agreement with the militaristic tradition of Islam than one might think. This is part of a legitimately Islamic traditional revival, not some kind of "extremism". The quiescent phases of Islam that we have seen in the past few hundred years are much better understood as deriving from the weakness of Islam and its subjugation by Western power, than an internal development. In fact, no internal theological or legal development took place to justify the quiescence of Islam.
8. Many Muslims are in fact wonderful people. They can find dignity and nourishment in their religion, which can inspire them to do good deeds. But the elements which pull them in the direction of violence and intolerance are very deeply rooted indeed and even "moderate" Muslims are very frequently prey to the appeals of what looks to us to be a "violent fringe."
All this doesn't mean that it is hopeless for Muslims to try to alter their religion or develop it. It doesn't mean that it is wrong or pointless to talk to Muslims. It means, though, that Muslims have to confront these elements in their tradition, history and contemporary practice and not turn away from them. We must be able to discuss all of them freely without being called "Islamophobes." And all of that is true because we face an actual and very serious danger today from a revived Islam confronting a weakened and divided West at odds with its own weakened Christian heritage.
(continued)
I myself have given all these points a great deal of thought and I see many questions that can be asked. But I don't think any of these points are anything like without merit. They can and should be critically discussed, but they cannot simply be dismissed. And Bob is always happy to discuss them in an atmosphere of mutual respect. I have seen very little of that coming from those who disagree with him, who mostly seem to assume that he doesn't know what he's talking about before actually reading or listening to him. The same rather shallow canards or accusations of hatred take the place of reasoned discussion. Many of us have experienced how deplorable that kind of conversation can be on other topics related to Catholicism recently and we should make sure that we are not doing something similar ourselves.
One last point.
Islam is a religious phenomenon. But Islam is also a political phenomenon. These two things go together, but it makes a difference in how you will approach your writing.
Bob is a faithful Catholic cleric, but he is writing about Islam primarily as a political phenomenon with an underlying religious dimension. That means that he doesn't spend a lot of time talking about the joy of Muslims on pilgrimage to Mecca, or the social implications of regular fasting during Ramadan. His approach is to warn us about the deep seated nature of an extremely threatening movement in the world today.
One can't do everything from every perspective. Bob knows perfectly well that those of us who have met kind, decent, dignified Muslims may have a kind of understandable resistance to believing some of the things he points out.
But anyone wanting to make the Positive Case for Islam can't simply sweep what Bob Spencer has to say under the rug. It simply won't stay swept. I don't mean to say that it is beyond criticism. I mean to say that it is beyond superficial criticism.
Here is the highly reputable Tantawi of Al-Azhar, who you say is against suicide attacks:
"The great Imam of AlAzhar Sheikh Muhammad Sayyed Tantawi, demanded that the Palestinian people, of all factions, intensify the martyrdom operations [i.e. suicide attacks] against the Zionist enemy, and described the martyrdom operations as the highest form of Jihad operations. He says that the young people executing them have sold Allah the most precious thing of all."
"[Sheikh Tantawi] emphasized that every martyrdom operation against any Israeli, including children, women, and teenagers, is a legitimate act according to [Islamic] religious law, and an Islamic commandment, until the people of Palestine regain their land and cause the cruel Israeli aggression to retreat…"
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cg...a=sd&
ID=SP36302
And it's illuminating that this quotation which you yourself post here is pretty much the same thing that Spencer says:
"It is vital to grasp that traditional and even mainstream Islamic teaching accepts and promotes violence. Shariah, for example, allows apostates to be killed, permits beating women to discipline them, seeks to subjugate non-Muslims to Islam as dhimmis and justifies declaring war to do so. It exhorts good Muslims to exterminate the Jews before the "end of days." The near deafening silence of the Muslim majority against these barbaric practices is evidence enough that there is something fundamentally wrong.
The grave predicament we face in the Islamic world is the virtual lack of approved, theologically rigorous interpretations of Islam that clearly challenge the abusive aspects of Shariah."
You can't understand Islam "it is vital to grasp" without understanding that violence and attempt to subjugate non-Muslims isn't extremism, but a part of traditional Islam per se: "traditional and even mainstream Islamic teaching accepts and promotes violence", and "seeks to subjugate non-Muslims to Islam as dhimmis and justifies declaring war to do so".
The vast majority of Muslims as a whole don't see anything wrong with this: "deafening silence of the Muslim majority". And that's because the attitudes go very, very deep in the religion: "something fundamentally wrong."
That's because all the major, living schools of Islam favor stuff like this, there isn't a competing moderate school, just a fringe of a fringe: "virtual lack of approved, theologically rigorous interpretations of Islam that clearly challenge the abusive aspects of Shariah."
Now it's one thing to say that in the face of all this we should still dialog with Muslims. It's quite another thing to say that it's wrong or Islamophobic to think it's a daunting task which very well may not succeed and that the best way to help moderates is to point all these things out and to insist on being able to be critical of the deep reasons in text and tradition to be disturbed.
As far as I can tell, this is the core of what Spencer says and here it is, virtually all of it from a Muslim in your own summary.
To clarify, Jeff -- You should know that from reading the past two years of my coverage of this issue I'm not about to extol the virtues of Islam as "the religion of peace". By no means can one say that of Islam in this day and age.
As you note, I devote quite a lengthy portion of the roundup to Tawfik Hamid, who has similar conclusions with Robert Spencer about the state of Islam -- salafist [fundamentalist] Islam -- "the dominant version of the religion taught in almost every Islamic university of the world." That Tawfik and Spencer arrive at similar conclusions certainly comes as no suprise to me, because I agree with them (to a certain extent).
But here's a point that distinguishes Tawfik Hamid from Robert Spencer, despite their mutual conclusions, and one I'm not sure Spencer would agree with or affirm. Tawfik remains a Muslim. He believes that he is "morally obligated to help Muslims understand the Koran in a peaceful manner." Although he holds no illusions about the difficulty of the path before him, Tawfik affirms the possibility of being a religious Muslim without affirming the violent jihad against non-Muslims that Spencer argues is, rather, part and parcel of any practicing Muslim. He believes that Islam possesses the theological capacity to reform itself.
When you say:
All this doesn't mean that it is hopeless for Muslims to try to alter their religion or develop it. It doesn't mean that it is wrong or pointless to talk to Muslims. It means, though, that Muslims have to confront these elements in their tradition, history and contemporary practice and not turn away from them.
You're talking like Tawfik. But I have to wonder when I read Robert Spencer (and I have read several of his early books, and assume his later works are more of the same) if he is simply asserting that Muslims have to 'confront these elements within their tradition', is merely seeking to bring critical attention to the nature of fundamentalist Islam "as a political movement with religious overtones" -- or if he is making a fundamental judgement about the possibility of being a Muslim?
Let's take a look at Spencer himself on the possibility of Islamic reform:
As should be plain to anyone who has examined the Islamic sources, to take the violence out of Islam would require it to jettison two things: the Quran as the word of Allah and Muhammad as Allah's prophet. In other words, to pacify Islam would require its transformation into something that it is not. The Western Christian Reformation, that is often used as an example, was an attempt (successful or not) to recover the essence of Christianity, namely, the example and teachings of Christ and the Apostles. Trying to get back to the example of Muhammad would have very different consequences. Indeed, one may say that Islam is today going through its "Reformation" with the increasing jihadist activity around the globe. Today, Muslims of the Salafi ("early generations") school are doing exactly that in focusing on the life of Muhammad and his early successors. These reformers are known to their detractors by the derogative term Wahhabi. Drawing their inspiration from Muhammad and the Quran, they are invariably disposed to violence. The unhappy fact is that Islam today is what it has been fourteen centuries: violent, intolerant, and expansionary. It is folly to think that we, in the course of a few years or decades, are going to be able to change the basic world outlook of a foreign civilization. Islam's violent nature must be accepted as given; only then will we be able to come up with appropriate policy responses that can improve our chances of survival.
So again, while Spencer and Hamid share similar appraisals of the state of salafist Islam in the world today (as do I), they come to very different conclusions, especially with respect to the idea of being a practicing Muslim.
Spencer's conclusions -- his verdict on the very nature of Islam -- spell out something different, I think, than the honest, critical dialogue and self-analysis that is advocated by Hamid.
Because if Islam cannot be reformed, if devout Muslims are "invariably disposed to violence" as Spencer contends, if "Islam's violent nature must be accepted as given" -- then one is moved to question the logic and rationality of meeting Muslims "in dialogue".
Not to mention the notion that we should be "seeking paths of reconciliation and learning to live with respect for each other's identity" -- affirming the possibility of mutual cooperation between Christianity and Islam with a "shared respect for the sacredness of every human life" (to quote from Benedict's address to Muslims in Cologne).
Which is why I again think that Spencer's assertions about "true" Islam -- taken to its ultimate conclusions -- carries within a clear criticism of the position espoused by Pope Benedict, and a program for dealing with Islam that is far different than that presently advocated by the Vatican.
The way I read Benedict and Spencer, the two seem to be at odds with each other.
I would also caution against viewing Cdl. Poupard as a credible sourcs, specifically because of the following comments he made on the one-year anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks:
Many of the so-called values of present Western civilization are anything but values. (T)he destruction of the family, the exaltation of homosexuality, the spread of pornography, growing immorality, abortion gratuitous violence, the exclusion of God in the edification of society ... stir contempt and hatred for decadent Western society in other civilizations (Zenit, Vatican news service, Sept. 10, 2002).
One doesn't have to promote the destruction of the family, homosexuality, abortion and the other evils to which Poupard refers to know how inappropriate his remarks were, given the timing. Essentially, he blames the victims for their own fate. In that regard, he sounds no different than an apologist for al-Qaeda.
Poupard is part of that faction of the Vatican that hides behind pro-Arab, pro-Muslim attitudes to mask their contempt for Israel and the West.
One more thing about the Catholic response to Islam should be noted:
Many, if not most, Catholics have forgotten the following fundamental, irreconsilable differences between the two faiths:
1. Though Ishmael also was Abraham's son (indeed, his first born), the promises God made to Abraham were to be carried through Isaac, not Ishmael.
2. Islam offers no theology of blood atonement for sin or redemption from sin. Both Judaism (at least in the OT) and Christianity do.
3. Islam rejects the idea of original sin and the idea of mediation between God and humanity. Islam also has no covenental theology the way Judaism and Christianity do.
4. NO Muslim would refer to God as "Father," the way Jews and Christians do. Indeed, Muslims would refer to such a title as an anthropomorphic sacrilidge.
I heartly suggest reading Alain Besancon's essay in the May 2004 edition of Commentary magazine, "What Kind Of Religion Is Islam?" Besancon challenges what he calls the "indulgent ecumenism" of the West, especially of the Catholic Church, regarding Islam.
[Steve Golay]:
Is it possible that the Jews truly did deceive us - that they told the story wrong about Isaac and Ishmael? Or in dialoguing with Isalm are we now to hold both versions as true and vital in the search for good fellowship?
How do we accept Islam theologically without parsing our way using a deconstructionist mode?
In these talks with Islam are insisting on Islam to reconsider any point of doctrine?
Reading Samir Khalil's assessment of where Benedict stands, I don't think Benedict is asking us to "accept Islam theologically" -- it's quite clear Christianity and Islam make claims to truth and divine revelation that are in clear opposition to each other.
But that doesn't negate what Benedict is asking in terms of dialogue and mutual cooperation with Muslims at this time.
[Jeff] Here is the highly reputable Tantawi of Al-Azhar, who you say is against suicide attacks.
I would say that MEMRI's profile of Sheik Tantawi needs to be updated, then.
Which of course makes Tantawi's re-scheduled visit the Pope in May all the more interesting (Islamic leader made last-minute cancellation of visit to Pope Catholic World News March 26, 2007):
Officials at the Holy See had been looking toward the Egyptian cleric's visit as a major step toward restoration of friendly relations with Islam after several months of tension. The Vatican has offered no public comment on the cancellation of the visit.
Is it just possible that Tantawi is saying one thing for Western consumption and something entirely different for Arab-Muslim consumption? After all, Arafat and his successor, Mahmood Abbas, have done the exact same thing.
Regardless of what Tantawi says or doesn't say, however, we should watch what al-Azhar does. Al-Azhar is not just a mosque; it's the most prestigious seminary in the Sunni world. When the sheikhs and theologians of al-Azhar issue fatwas against bin Laden and his ilk, al-Qaeda as a whole and the Palestinian suicide bombers (and the imams who inspire and encourage their hatred), then we can take hope. But not until then.
I don't like the way my point of view was summarized on the blog. I'd prefer it read as follows: The editor of Second Spring and member of the editorial boards of Communio and The Chesterton Review examines Islam's dialogue with modernity and hopes for the emergence of a more moderate and ecumenical Islam. Acknowledging that Islam was spread largely by conquest, Caldecott points out that Islamic countries did not always try to impose uniformity of belief, and suggests the assumption (made in Pope Benedict's Regensberg address) that Islam worships a God of Pure Will rather than Reason may be an oversimplification, in light of the existence within Islam of the Sufi (mystical) tradition.
Stratford, I have revised my presentation of your position as requested. (I would also hope you might contribute further to this discussion, as your opinion is valued).
For the record, I would be happy to extend the same courtesy to my presentation of Robert Spencer's position on Islam. Insofar as I read his writing, I think I have described his position accurately. To quote him directly: "there might be moderate Muslims, but there is no such thing as a 'moderate' Islam" -- and Islam itself does not provide sufficient grounds to enact such a reform.
I think you might find Bernard Lewis of value in answering questions about Islam, since he goes out of his way to understand Islam as it understands itself. We often hear of the inseparability of religion and state in Islam, and Lewis gives some concrete examples of the intellectual challenge posed. See, for example, this lecture at AEI back in March.
http://www.aei.org/publications/.../
pub_detail.asp
My own view, after reading the Pope, Lewis, a biography of Saladin, and travelling to the Holy Land last year and asking lots of questions, is that terrorism & mere cruelty are foreign to Islam --that really is a highjacking of the religion. But conquest is not. It is hard to see how any faithful Muslim could give up the notion that a majority Muslim society must be ruled by sharia, e.g. And that means Islam poses a much deeper challenge to our Western sense of rights and free exercise than we are presently grappling with.
After 9/11 there was endless speculation along the lines of 'The Clash of Civilizations' about whether Islam is 'essentially' warlike or terroristic. Jonah Goldberg remarked that he didn't know or care if Islam is 'essentially' warlike or terroristic, all he could know or care about was whether some Muslims were out to get him at this moment.
I think that's good theology. From a theological perspective, only one religion has an 'essence' - Catholic Christianity, the integrity of which will remain until the end of time. Outside of that, no religion has an 'essential nature' any more than France or the National Union of Mineworkers has an essential nature. Islam will, on that theological analysis, carry on mutating and interpreting the Koran in line with those mutations, and is just as changeable as any other purely human social formation. Social entities created in history solely by human volition, that is all social entities other than the Catholic Church, may retain the same name, but do not necessarily retain the same essence. Nominalism is a bad thing - when there actually is an essence there. But it's right to be a metaphysical nominalist or non-essentialist about non-Christian religions.
For the record: the gentleman who runs this blog continues to misrepresent my positions, as he did in 2003.
Anyone who has read my books or articles, rather than just a few paragraphs picked up from being quoted elsewhere, will know that in reality, I have no disagreements with Tawfik Hamid, have written favorably about him on several occasions, and am wholeheartedly in favor of the Secular Islam Summit, where he spoke -- as did two members of the Advisory Board of my group Jihad Watch, Ibn Warraq and Tashbih Sayyed.
Tashbih is, like Hamid, a Muslim reformer who remains a Muslim. I am proud to be his friend and support his work 100%.
I myself have been invited to speak at a Secular Islam Summit event being planned for next year in Tunisia, and have accepted.
I am a Catholic, and am not aware of any way in which my position differs from that of Pope Benedict XVI. I do not believe that the honest dialogue for which he calls can proceed on the basis of comforting fictions (which circulate about Islam in large numbers), but only by confronting the reality of what the various sects and schools of Islam teach about jihad, dhimmitude, and related matters. I have devoted myself to raising awareness of those issues so that people of good will, Muslims and non-Muslims, can work to find positive ways to mitigate the use of core Islamic texts and traditions by jihad terrorists.
Allow me also to note that my dear and much-missed friend Oriana Fallaci, author of "The Rage and the Pride" and "The Force of Reason," was granted Pope's Benedict's first private audience, although she was an atheist. She could not tell me many details of the meeting, but clearly she had great respect for him, and that respect was based on what she saw as his awareness of the problem of the increasingly restive Muslim populations in Europe -- a problem that stems from Islam's character as a political and social system as well as an individual religious faith.
Yet I rather expect that the author of this weblog would assume that Ms. Fallaci and the Pope were on opposite sides of this issue.
Any fair-minded person who would like to discuss the issues at hand is invited to contact me at director@jihadwatch.org.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
By the way, I am not the author of the text "Christopher" quoted above. That was written, as is quite clear from the heading of the page, by my colleague Gregory Davis.
As far as I am concerned, in brief, reform in Islam will be difficult, but that is no reason not to support people like Tawfik Hamid and Tashbih Sayyed.
This is just one indication of the carelessness, not to mention lack of charity, with which "Christopher" has approached my work both in 2003 and in the present case.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
Please note also that the lengthy quote in a comment above, which Christopher says is from me, was actually written by my colleague Gregory Davis.
This is just another indication of the carelessness with which Christopher has approached my work both in 2003 and now.
As far as the quote goes, I believe that if the Qur'an and Sunnah do not have to be jettisoned, certainly a non-literal understanding of them has to be elaborated. Anyone who doubts this is invited to read and ponder the implications of texts such as Qur'an 9:29, Sahih Muslim 4294, and many other similar texts.
Cordially,
Robert Spencer
My apologies for the near-duplicate posts. The first didn't seem to have gone through.
RS
Anyone who has read my books or articles, rather than just a few paragraphs picked up from being quoted elsewhere, will know that in reality, I have no disagreements with Tawfik Hamid, have written favorably about him on several occasions, and am wholeheartedly in favor of the Secular Islam Summit, where he spoke -- as did two members of the Advisory Board of my group Jihad Watch, Ibn Warraq and Tashbih Sayyed.
Tashbih is, like Hamid, a Muslim reformer who remains a Muslim. I am proud to be his friend and support his work 100%.
Thank you for your contribution, Robert and I'm sincerely glad to hear that you "have no disagreements with Tawfik Hamid."
Insofar as Tawfik asserts that "Islam is reformable and could be understood in a theologically-based peaceful demeanour," and that the Koran can interpreted in such a manner as to advocate peace, I'm relieved to hear you support his effort.
By the way, I am not the author of the text "Christopher" quoted above. That was written, as is quite clear from the heading of the page, by my colleague Gregory Davis.
I stand corrected in my attribution of the quote. I'm curious -- do you maintain Davis' belief that Islam is "invariably disposed to violence" or that "Islam's violent nature must be accepted as given"?
I am a Catholic, and am not aware of any way in which my position differs from that of Pope Benedict XVI. I do not believe that the honest dialogue for which he calls can proceed on the basis of comforting fictions (which circulate about Islam in large numbers), but only by confronting the reality of what the various sects and schools of Islam teach about jihad, dhimmitude, and related matters. I have devoted myself to raising awareness of those issues so that people of good will, Muslims and non-Muslims, can work to find positive ways to mitigate the use of core Islamic texts and traditions by jihad terrorists.
I don't take issue with the fact that you wish to draw attention to the problem of militant Islam and "call attention to the roots and goals of jihad violence." I do take issue, however, with your approach.
On one hand, your critique applies to a specific kind and manifestation of Islam and what "various sects and schools" hold -- regretfully (and of course I acknowledge this), those that are predominant.
On the other hand, I think your overall approach, along with those who produce a film like "Islam: What the West Needs to Know" (I now notice that Mr. Davis was a producer) certainly lends the impression that you are making sweeping condemnations of Islam in toto. I think such an approach discounts or minimizes other aspects of "the good, the true and the beautiful" that are found within the tradition.
I think a sober, serious and critical engagement of the negative aspects of Islam is needed and necessary. I likewise concur with the need for people (Muslims and non-Muslims) "to work to find positive ways to mitigate the use of core Islamic texts and traditions by jihad terrorists."
Unfortunately, I also think the way you go about achieving that goal is extremely counterproductive.
To use but one example, what would my Muslim neighbors (who abhor Islamic extremism as much as any other American) make of a book titled "Islam Unveiled: Disturbing Questions about the World's Fastest Growing Faith" -- emblazoned across a photo of Mohammad Atta and a veiled Muslim woman?
Or what would they think of the book published by your colleague, Gregory Davis, in which -- to quote the publisher's description --
rebuts the notion that Islam is a great faith in desperate need of a Reformation. Instead, he exposes it as a form of totalitarianism, a belief system that orders its adherents not to baptize all nations, but to conquer and subdue them. Islamic law's governance of every aspect of religious, political, and personal action has far more in common with Nazism than with the tenets of Christianity or Judaism?
Q: Do you believe that about Islam??
Q: Does Pope Benedict XVI?
I think you might be surprised at the answers you would get if you asked Hamid if the Islam of, say, Osama bin Laden has more in common with Naziism than with Christianity or Judaism. And what do you yourself think? Don't you think that even if that assertion is questionable it's well within the bounds of reasonable debate?
Well, then the next question must be: Is Osama bin Laden's form of Islam an extremist movement which distorts historical and traditional Islam? Or is it in fact in most ways mainstream, traditional Islam?
Do you seriously contend that that question is illegitimate? Or that it is unimportant? Or that it ought not to be asked for fear of offending Muslims? Hamid doesn't seem to be offended by Spencer. They are friends. So if you like Hamid's approach and Hamid has a friendly and respectful approach to Spencer, why on earth should you say that his approach is counterproductive?
Are we really not to be permitted to ask whether the Prophet Mohammed was a good or a mediocre or a bad man? If the Quran, read as a whole in the traditional way, is inimical in its influence?
I understand that ordinary Muslims in the street might be offended at what Spencer says. Spencer might not be a good jumping off point for discussions with ordinary Muslims. So what? One can't address everyone at once and one can't say everything that needs to be said at the same time.
Spencer is saying: Islam as history has known it has been a far darker force in history than we would like to think. And that darkness is intimately connected to its fundamental texts and traditional ways of reading them.
You seem to be saying that we can't investigate these things for fear of provoking a backlash among Muslims, even if they are simply true. But if they are true, they will of necessity affect the way we conduct ourselves, politically and religiously. How can we not investigate them?
Is it really offensive to say that Islam is a fundamentally political religion which expressed itself as a totalitarian ideology and is in danger of doing the same to us? How can that be offensive if it might in fact be true? And why should the fact that someone trying to dramatize those parallels speaks of Naziism and Communism in the same breath be the central question in any such discussion? Asking "offensive questions" is ruled out of court if occasionally someone notches the rhetoric a bit too high?
Is Talibanism really incomparable to Naziism? If it is comparable--if not identical--then as I said at the outset, we have to be able to ASK, whether we offend people or not, how close Talibanism is to historic Islam and how intimate its relationship is with text and and tradition--as they are understood by mainstream Muslims today.
Shall we shelve that question as you seem to propose because we might offend? Or mightn't a better approach be to do both?
Fundamentalist Protestants have every right with far less evidence to ask if Catholicism is an evil distortion of pure Christianity. And we have a right to calmly answer. If Muslims are going to dialog about Islam and Christianty deeply, then we must be prepared to listen to them when they accuse us of perverting the Bible and damnably making a mere creature into God. And believe me, they do. I am in daily discussion with Muslims who tell me I am going to hell because Jesus is just a prophet and that all honest people must recognize the Quran as the pure word of God, God will not forgive the shirk of Jesus worship. This is part of classical Islam and we must be prepared to listen to it and patiently and repeatedly respond to it, not to declare it out-of-bounds because it offends us.
And this is precisely the argument I make to my Muslim friends who are offended by the likes of Spencer. "Look," I say. "If you and your friends think that Christianity is a wicked and evil perversion of the truth, I must listen and patiently reply. I assume that even if I am hurt or offended by what you say, you are speaking honestly and telling me what you think. And I ask you to give me the opportunity to respond.
"Similarly, as long as the personal approach to you is polite, you have to entertain and patiently think about and respond to accusations about Islam that you find deeply disturbing. This is part of what we must do for each other if we are to talk..."
Liberal or reformist Muslims like Hamid are often willing to do this. Others must learn to precisely because we need an full, open, and honest dialog, for pressing political reasons as well as religious ones.
I wish you would read Bob's books and not just the dust jackets.
And I should add, criticize him on the basis of the dust jackets of others. Why is that the place to start a discussion?
"Your colleague's publicist paints his opinions in glaring colors on his dust jackets as publicists are wont to do. I don't want to ask you about what you have said, I want to ask if you agree with your colleague's publicist wholeheartedly, in part, or not at all?"
It reminds me of the method of criticizing Morton et al. and everything they have to say on the basis of one or two bits of quotes from their blogs or those of their sypathizers, rather than engaging with the substance on its own terms.
What is NOT commendable about Akyol's last piece, for example, is that there is absolutely NO effort to address the ARGUMENTS that the militants make about the texts and traditions of Islam.
Akyol rightly says that Spencer's arguments about Islam and those of the militants are similar. But he utterly fails to address Spencer's contention: that the militants are in fact more faithful exponents of the textual sources and of historical Islam than Akyol.
Is Spencer right or not? Akyol doesn't say. Hamid implies that Spencer is right or close to it.
Christopher, you spoke of the "predominance" of schools of Islam which agree with the militant approach. "Overwhelming, virtually exclusive predominance even until today" and "based firmly on text and tradition as a whole," come nearer the mark, if Spencer is right.
That simply MUST have implications for how an honest dialog must be conducted, don't you agree?
I was just reading a review by Father Neuhaus in First Things online. I came on the following sentence and thought it apropos in light of our exchange about Muslims like Akyol and Hamid:
"Jenkins places high hopes in the emergence of “moderate” Muslims. His confidence in Tariq Ramadan and his version of Euro-Islam in a “religiously pluralistic” Europe is not reassuring. Ramadan has a notorious record of taking contradictory positions, ranging from the pacific to the insurrectionary. Moreover, Jenkins’ hope that Muslim scholars can submit sacred texts to critical analysis and still remain credibly Muslim is, to say the least, questionable. As for the possibilities of an Islamic version of the Christian synthesis of faith and reason, see my aforementioned essay “The Regensburg Moment.” We should be supportive of Muslims who want to “put a human face” on Islam—or a democratic face, if you prefer. But it is wrongheaded to compare them with Soviet dissidents of decades past, as some do. The dissidents’ cause contributed to the disappearance of the Soviet Union. For a billion different reasons, Islam is not going to disappear. “Moderates” whose commitment to Islam is in doubt are going to be of very little help."
"Little help" in what? Certainly if we are looking for dialog partners, they are about the only thing going. How can they be "little help"?
They are going to be of "little help" in the social and political questions we face when confronting a revivified Islam. In other words, Neuhaus, like Spencer, is here--quite legitimately--approaching Islam not for religious dialog, but as a real and threatening phenomenon to be dealt with.
We have to understand that phenomenon. Is it essentially the same as historical and textual Islam? Or is it a radical fringe on a peaceful religion? How likely is it that "moderates" will affect it greatly in the short term? How likely in the long-term? How are they regarded by the vast majority of other Muslims?
These are questions which deserve serious answers. And Spencer--like Neuhaus in his review--is addressing this phenomenon, not primarily looking for partners in religious dialog. The purposes necessarily overlap to some degree but they are not the same.
We must try to dialog with those Muslims who want to dialog. But we must not mistake them for influential voices in today's Islam or for representative examples of orthodox Islam. They are a lonely and persecuted fringe. They should be encouraged, but not relied upon. And we cannot for fear of offending them, refuse to ask questions about what Islam in fact has been and is just because we hope it will become something different.
I think you might be surprised at the answers you would get if you asked Hamid if the Islam of, say, Osama bin Laden has more in common with Naziism than with Christianity or Judaism. And what do you yourself think? Don't you think that even if that assertion is questionable it's well within the bounds of reasonable debate?
Jeff, the Islam of Osama bin Laden DOES have more in common with Nazism. But, as you'll note, Gregory Davis' is making claims about Islam per se, not about the Islam of Osama Bin Ladin.
Well, then the next question must be: Is Osama bin Laden's form of Islam an extremist movement which distorts historical and traditional Islam? Or is it in fact in most ways mainstream, traditional Islam?
Well, that's the question. Is the suicide-bombing hostage-beheading jihadi a distortion and perversion of Islam? or is he representative of Islam?
Do you seriously contend that that question is illegitimate? Or that it is unimportant?
No, and no. Although I think one could pose the questions in a somewhat less hysterical and over the top manner than Spencer and Davis are presently doing.
So if you like Hamid's approach and Hamid has a friendly and respectful approach to Spencer, why on earth should you say that his approach is counterproductive?
I have several concerns, Jeff. Let me get this clear -- I'm not disputing the fact that these are questions that should be asked and investigated. Calmly, carefully, soberly. Muslims in fact are already asking it of themselves, independently of Spencer's provocation.
At the same time -- we're locked in a bitter war against fundamentalist Islamic terrorists. Our government is navigating difficult waters in asking Muslims to cooperate with us in this venture, is assuring Muslims (particularly those who live among us) that this war is not against them per se.
Likewise, Pope Benedict is making similar demands of the worldwide Muslim community, with his pleas for mutual understanding and cooperation among communities -- and despite the rioters who make the headlines, others are responding to his request.
So when certain critics of Islam posit that "Islam's violent nature must be accepted as given" or seek to reduce Islam in toto to nothing more than a totalitarian Nazi-esque ideology masquerading as faith, that the vast majority of Muslims today are in their heart of hearts "in sympathy with" the propagators of 9/11 even though they might not commit the acts themselves -- I question the effectiveness of taking that specific approach. Unless you really want to conclude that Islam is nothing more than an ideology, that 1.3 billion people on this planet are fanatical adherents to a death-dealing totalitarianism, and the only way we're going to win this "long war" is to convince them to abandon their faith or address them for the threat they really are.
Spencer might not be a good jumping off point for discussions with ordinary Muslims. So what?
Spencer / Davis is to the Christian-Muslim dialogue what Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh are to political debate. Legitimate questions might be posed, but they do so in a sensationalistic manner which provokes more heat than light. As for "ordinary Muslims" -- those are the people we need to reach. Before they become indoctrinated in the schools of extremist thought that Tawfik warns about.
By way of comparison, the much-admired Oriana Fallaci's charge that "There is not 'good' Islam or 'bad' Islam. There is just Islam. And Islam is the Qur’an. And the Qur’an is the Mein Kampf of this movement" . . . . probably isn't the most effective way of promoting critical self-reflection in the Muslim community, inspiring them to examine the more questionable elements of their religion, or eliciting a rational response.
Now, if Spencer and Davis look with favor on Fallaci's approach and even come to the same conclusions, I see little compatibility between that and Benedict's furvent wish for Muslims and Christians to "seek paths of reconciliation and learn to live with respect for each other's identity."
The only logical conclusion if you sincerely believe what Fallaci does is to recognize the face of your enemy, prepare for all out war, and to urge your government to do the same. Because there's simply no such thing as a "reform" of Islam, and any talk of cooperation with Islam is a false and illusory hope.
If Muslims are going to dialog about Islam and Christianty deeply, then we must be prepared to listen to them when they accuse us of perverting the Bible and damnably making a mere creature into God. And believe me, they do. I am in daily discussion with Muslims who tell me I am going to hell because Jesus is just a prophet and that all honest people must recognize the Quran as the pure word of God, God will not forgive the shirk of Jesus worship. This is part of classical Islam and we must be prepared to listen to it and patiently and repeatedly respond to it, not to declare it out-of-bounds because it offends us.
100% agreed.
I wish you would read Bob's books and not just the dust jackets.
I read beyond the dust jacket of that particular book -- that was probably 2-3 years ago. I then decided my time was limited. Spencer is not the only Catholic scholar to have written on the subject of Islam.
. . . And I should add, criticize [Davis] on the basis of the dust jackets of others. Why is that the place to start a discussion?
"Your colleague's publicist paints his opinions in glaring colors on his dust jackets as publicists are wont to do. I don't want to ask you about what you have said, I want to ask if you agree with your colleague's publicist wholeheartedly, in part, or not at all?"
The publisher's description of Gregory Davis' position is hardly promotional hyperbole; it mirrors what Gregory Davis himself wrote in the 'Islam 101' FAQ on JihadWatch which in turn mirrors the manifesto behind 'The Truth about Islam' produced by . . . Gregory Davis; so it would appear the publisher's description of Davis' message was on target.
It's obvious what Gregory Davis thinks and what his conclusions are. Given as Spencer presently 1) maintains a website featuring Davis' work; 2) has participated in a documentary produced by Davis promoting said conclusions; 3) plugs Davis' own book on the subject, I'm naturally curious whether Spencer agrees with the conclusions of his colleague.
And beyond that, whether Pope Benedict's assessment of Islam and manner of approaching the Muslim community can be aligned with Davis and/or Spencer.
[Re: Neuhaus: "'Moderates' whose commitment to Islam is in doubt are going to be of very little help."
[Jeff:] "Little help" in what? Certainly if we are looking for dialog partners, they are about the only thing going. How can they be "little help"?
Here's what Neuhaus might be getting at:
Yet more troubling is the message that Islam, in order to become less of a threat to the world, must relativize its claim to possess the truth. That plays directly into the hands of Muslim rigorists who pose as the defenders of the uncompromised and uncompromisible truth and who call for death to the infidels. If Islam is to become tolerant and respectful of other religions, it must be as the result of a development that comes from within the truth of Islam, not as a result of relativizing or abandoning that truth. Is Islam capable of such a religious development? Nobody knows. But, if the choice is between compromising Islamic truth or a war of civilizations, it is almost certain that the winner among Muslims will be the hard-core Islamism that Lewis rightly views as such a great threat.
Christianity is more, not less, vibrantly Christian as a result of coming to understand more fully the mysterious and loving ways of God in His dealings also with non-Christians. Although the story of this development is complex, the important truth is that tolerance and mutual respect are religious, not secular, achievements. I will say it again: the reason we do not kill one another over our disagreements about the will of God is that we believe it is against the will of God to kill one another over our disagreements about the will of God. Christians have come to believe that. We must hope that more and more Muslims will come to believe that. That will not happen, however, if they are told that coming to believe that will make them less faithful Muslims. Or, as Bernard Lewis puts it, that they become relativists.
Fr. Neuhaus to Bernard Lewis. "Why Aren’t Muslims Like Us?"
First Things June/July 2003
If secular ideologies such as Nazism and Communism can be evil, then why can't religions be evil?
Most modern people believe that religions advocating human sacrifice, for example, are somehow flawed, primitive or barbaric. Well, what about a religion that rewards those who murder innocent non-believers with "martyrdom" status and delights in the afterlife? What, pray tell, is the difference?
After all, one reason God ordered the Israelites evacuating Egypt under Moses to conquer the Canaanites was because their religions were an abomination to Him.
If secular ideologies such as Nazism and Communism can be evil, then why can't religions be evil?
I don't think anybody is questioning whether it can't. And I have little problem calling the religion of Osama Bin Laden evil and a perversion.
But then, I'm not so sure I'd attribute the same to other practicioners of Islam, who disagree with the murder of innocents, who condemn the actions of Bin Laden and his ilk, who draw inspiration and nourishment from the Qu'Ran.
Islam is experiencing an identity crisis.
...I'm not so sure I'd attribute the same to other practicioners of Islam, who disagree with the murder of innocents, who condemn the actions of Bin Laden and his ilk, who draw inspiration and nourishment from the Qu'Ran.
Christopher, are such people sincere in their comdemnation or are they striking a pose for Western consumption and saying something entirely different to fellow Muslims?
Besides, as I said earlier, it matters less what individual Muslims believe on these issues as to what the legitimate religious leaders believe and, more importantly, do. When I see fatwas excommunicating bin Laden, Zarqawi, their confederates, Palestinian suicide bombers, the imams who encourage them and the rest of that ilk -- indeed, if I see fatwas condemning such behavior as evil -- then I will take Islam seriously as a moral force. Not before and not until.
The behavior of most Muslim authorities is analogous to a pope supporting (or, at least, not condemning) the IRA.
Christopher,
What is it (where it it located) WITHIN Islam that permit Muslims to separate its theological doctrines from the issue of co-existence?
You have highlighted those (within Islam) who are making the attempt - so the discussion remains at the level of co-existence. (Such make a strong claim on our support.) But, in the end, is that effort possible without Islam disintegrating - becomming something it is not.
Also, can Islam enter and contribute to the discussion without taking up the dialoguing tools of the West - giving thanks to the culture that created them and their usefulness? But would not using such tools effectively - with thanksgiving - become Isalm's disintegration?
In truth, creation and the Natural Law is the genesis of such tools (and the genius of the West). Does Islam have within itself the insight and will to pick up such tools? Does Islam truly touch base with creation and the Natural Law?
Here is my simple post on this topic. I welcome your judgment on it.
http://ressourcement.blogspot.co...7/04/
islam.html
Thanks, David.
Brother,
Christ is Risen!
Great post! I have also greatly enjoyed the comments. Hopefully I get some feedback from the same folks on my post.
The attentive reader will note that Christopher, with his sadly typical carelessness, opposes Pope Benedict to Fallaci, without noting the fact of their audience, or of her great admiration for him, which she relayed to me specifically in the context of his understanding of Islam.
As for the rest, the reform of Islam will be prohibitively difficult, but nothing is impossible. Christopher's confidence on this point is laudable, but it should be tempered with a realistic assessment of Islamic theology, history, and present-day reality -- and not with the self-righteousness with which he surrounds it, as if only people who are not quite decent or respectable would dare take a dim view of its prospects.
As for the slurs on my motivations, character, and presentation, likening me to sensationalist conservatives, I would disagree that telling the truth is counter-productive, and would ask Christopher to point out any inaccuracy in my work, and I will duly retract.
Robert Spencer
The attentive reader will note that Christopher, with his sadly typical carelessness, opposes Pope Benedict to Fallaci, without noting the fact of their audience, or of her great admiration for him, which she relayed to me specifically in the context of his
understanding of Islam.
Fallaci, Spencer, Tawfik Hamid, Benedict (and myself and everybody here for that matter) appear to agree with the threat posed by what is now the predominant (salafist) form of Islam; that the elements of reform within Islam are presently a minority; that there are considerable challenges posed to the development of a 'hermeneutic of reform' in interpreting the founding scriptures of the Islamic tradition.
That said, Benedict's understanding of Islam, insofar as it is conveyed in his public addresses and writings, does not seem to cohere with the equasion of the Qu'Ran's reduction to Mein Kampf [Fallaci]; nor Gregory Davis' reduction of Islam to a violent totalitarian ideology ("to take the violence out of Islam would require it to jettison two things: the Quran as the word of Allah and Muhammad as Allah's prophet"). The views of Fr. Samir Khalil Samir and Christian W. Troll, and their assessments of Benedict's perspectives on Islam, are rather more nuanced and do not imply a wholesale condemnation, and there are distinct
If Spencer can provide something more from the Pope besides an appeal to Fallaci's esteem of him that signifies his agreement with her conclusions and support of her approach, he is welcome to provide it.
On a related note, see the Ratzinger-Schülerkreis of September 2005, a meeting of Benedict with his former students and invited scholars to discuss this very topic:
The Pope and the Koran by Daniel Pipes New York Sun January 17, 2006) and A Key Change to "The Pope and the Koran" Daniel Pipes / Fr. Fessio, January 21, 2006.)
This blog is awesome. Thanks for the effort Christopher. The better angels of our nature hope you are right. The sad, sad probability is that Robert Spencer has the facts on his side.
Hypocritical Extremist (hehe I appreciate your humor) - I stand with you.
What I am not convinced of is Christopher's understanding of the topic. Here is what I mean. I don't think Robert nor myself condemn all Muslims nor all Muslim thought. There is a Dark Side of Islam. You can call this many things - radical, militant, fundamentalist, etc. Our point (if I can be as bold to assume Robert agrees with me) is that this Dark Side of Islam is rooted within the Koran and the Hadith.
http://ressourcement.blogspot.co...7/04/
islam.html
This Dark Side of Islam is rooted from within the very origins and roots of the religion. Neither Robert or myself claim that all Muslims are evil. Christopher seems to me is trying to make an either/or argument here between his position and ours. It's a paper tower he's tearing down. Both Robert and I desire dialog wit Muslims. A sincere dialog between all parties will only help us to find a way to live in peace within this fallen world of ours.
It's one thing for Christopher to disagree with the method Robert uses - a critique of his method as to its effectiveness for apologetics to Muslims. Robert though responds by asking what is false or erroneous with the content of his thought. If what he says is true than all parties must come to terms with it.
Let's get concrete - what consequences attain to a person proclaiming in public his belief in capital offenses not enshrined in US law? Who among you defend the right of the iman to protest the free speech of Somali refugee Ayaan Hirsi Ali
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/...s/
s_504200.html
by claiming he's harmless in wishing to see her executed by a "foreign" law he swears allegiance to? Do our Immigration laws require Moslems to renounce such allegiances to a "foreign" law, to trade-in their religious identity so-to-speak in order to obtain for themselves the privilege of resident aliens status?
For your own clarity of mind consider the position form the other side of the arguement: transpose the "freedom of speach" issue to a modern secular country with a carbon copy flag star-n-stripes flag: Malaysia, with an additional cresent moon in the top quadrant. Article 160 (2) of their Constitution declares
all citizens Muslims, regardless of their "private" beliefs, meaning 40% of their citizens don't get a say - how's that for freedom of speach?
Rights are outlined in secular codices, the ultimate arbiter remains Shari'ah religious courts. For over a decade a Lina Joy has sought to marry her Christian fiance,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lina_Joy
by seeking a certificate of Apostasy and requesting her biometric smartchip identity card, known as MyKad, be reprogrammed to record her new religious affiliation so that they may get the license to marry. This has been denied her because that's a capital offense - yup changing ones ID card is a capital offense under Shari'ah !!!! In a so-called modern moderate (read capitalist free market) Islamic federation.
Beware drinking the kool-aid (that liberal mercantilism will change hearts and minds): metaphysical Truth is absolute, and the best hope we have is in re-hellenizing humanism (read promote "the natural law") in our domestic and international institutions such as state and local jurisprudence, UN, World Band et al. The hearts and minds we need to be concerned about are those of our Western neighbors who cannot grasp the elemental "religious" nature of the problem because we've lost the vocabulary to debate it with them. Talk about "No child left behind" ? All our kids got left behind the moment we dropped the Christian worldview from our schools curricula! Our military is paying the price now, and we haven't even got the pertinent topic on the political agenda yet:
If Salafists are so unsavoury, why do we count the Saudi's as our allies? Camels don't go through eyes of needles, right? Hurry and up make your minds up what freedom of speech is 'cos while you're busy debating the Organization of the Islamic Conference succeeded end of March in having the UN Human Rights Council pass a resolution opposing public defamation of religion (specifically a critique of Islam's values, including the "capital offsenses" Ms's Hirsi Ali and Joy expression of free will incurs).
That's right, everything I just wrote is now a human rights violation!
What Spencer, Davis and Fallaci have in common--which you persist in refusing to understand--is an approach to Islam as a systemic, immediate and existential DANGER to Western society.
Islam, as it exists today, may or may not be such a threat. But that is a FACTUAL question, Christopher.
You seem to be reasoning this way: Islam is a religion of billions of people. We are committed to talking with these people about religion because they share our world and they too believe in God. Therefore, it cannot be true that Islam is an existential threat. Islam simply MUST be something other than what the "Salafist" version says it is.
That does not compute.
If Nazism were a tradition of fifteen hundred years vintage and had maintained its character over that time and was undefeatable in the short run, then we would indeed and of course be talking to Nazis. And we would especially be talking to those Nazis who seemed to want to transform it into something other than it had been.
John Paul engaged Marxists and Communists in Poland in dialog, treating them as respectful partners and trying to find common ground with them. And although he never wavered in his condemnation of Marxism, he indeed found common ground with them.
Mutatis mutandis, the same kind and ecumenical Pontiff did not consider it "hysterical" to publicly describe Pentecostal Christians as "ravening wolves" in Santo Domingo (see Sandro Magister's latest column.) Did that mean that they were beyond dialog? No. Did it mean that such a dialog precluded language that highlighted the inimical and threatening face of Pentacostalism in Latin America, which was in fact less a dialog partner than a foe? Certainly not.
You seem to endlessly dance around the central issues here, preferring to focus on extremes of rhetoric. Well, in extreme situations, extremes of rhetoric are forgiveable and understandable. How bad is the threat we face from Islam? That is the question. And it's one that you don't seem interested in trying to answer. "Not too bad," you seem to say. "We're commmitted to dialoguing with them, so it can't be all that bad. After all, we wouldn't be committed to dialoguing with them if they were as bad as Spencer says."
Can you really be thinking as shallowly as that?
You agree that Talibanism is a totalitarian ideology. Well, you can't start you reasoning from what you would prefer Islam to be. You have to start it from what Islam in fact IS and HAS BEEN.
Fr. Khalil, whom you quote favorably, has a column in chiesa dated April 29 in which he discusses Ratzinger's view of Islam. He quotes Ratzinger as pointing out that Islam is different from Christianity in that'
“the Koran is a total religious law, which regulates the whole of political and social life and insists that the whole order of life be Islamic. Shari’a shapes society from beginning to end. In this sense, it can exploit such freedoms as our constitutions give, but it cannot be its final goal to say: Yes, now we too are a body with rights, now we are present [in society] just like the Catholics and the Protestants. In such a situation, [Islam] would not achieve a status consistent with its inner nature; it would be in alienation from itself”.
Note that the Pope is speaking about the nature of the Quran and of sharia, the nature of the wellsprings of Islam itself. And he points out that there is something about Islam itself that seems incompatible with our civilization, something indigestible.
Khalil--let me point out that you have contrasted him with Spencer above--goes on:
Thus cardinal Ratzinger saw clearly an essential difficulty of socio-political relations with the Muslim world, which comes from the totalizing conception of Islamic religion, which is profoundly different from Christianity.
He points out that Ratzinger continued to point out this profound difficulty with engaging Islam after he was Pope at Castel Gandolfo:
On this occasion, he started from a theological point of view, taking into account the Islamic conception of revelation: the Koran “descended” upon Mohammad, it is not “inspired” to Mohammad. For this reason, a Muslim does not think himself authorized to interpret the Koran, but is tied to this text which emerged in Arabia in the 7th century. This brings to the same conclusions as before: the absolute nature of the Koran makes dialogue all the more difficult, because there is very little room for interpretation, if at all....This alienation could be resolved only through the total Islamization of society.
Now, how does your friend, Father Khalil sum up what he sees as Ratzinger's view of Islam? How does he title the section, which DOES NOT DISCUSS ANY PARTICULAR TYPE OR VARIETY OR SCHOOL OF ISLAM BUT ONLY DISCUSSES ISLAM ITSELF AS A WHOLE?
Khalil titles this section:
Islamic totalitarianism differs from Christianity
There is no way, Christopher, that one can interpret the epithet "totalitarianism" as applying to anything but Islam itself. So, now, should we make snide remarks about Khalil and refuse to engage the substance of what he says because he describes Islam as a form of "totalitarianism"?
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblic...?id=53826&
eng=y
I really, really think you need to rethink your approach to this whole issue. Spencer isn't doing everything and there is room for others to take other approaches. But those approaches cannot preclude a highly negative appraisal of Mohammed or of Islam as a politico-religious phenomenon.
Let me make clear what I am hoping for from you:
I am certainly not asking that you adopt Spencer as your spiritual guide to the entire question of Islam. What I'm hoping for is that you will retract the superficial and dismissive attitude and come to grips with more than just the rhetoric involved in the discussion.
Let's suppose for the sake of argument that Spencer is missing something important in his approach to Islam. Still, what he DOES do is vitally important.
The fallback position today is that Islam is a religion of peace and that the terrorism we experience stems from a perverse or marginal manifestation of Islam.
But what, Christopher, if that isn't true? What if the essential theological tenets of the Islamic terrorists are in fact the theological tenets of ALL the historical schools of Islam? What if they are deeply rooted in essential teachings and attitudes of the Quran, the ahadith, and the life of the Prophet?
This is the key issue. And it's one that will have to deeply affect our dialog with the Muslims.
Why not engage Spencer on the substance of these issues rather than just dismissing him because some bits of his rhetoric bug you?
What Spencer, Davis and Fallaci have in common--which you persist in refusing to understand--is an approach to Islam as a systemic, immediate and existential DANGER to Western society.
No disputing it -- Islam insofar as it exists in its predominant form today constitutes an existential threat to Europe and the West.
You seem to be reasoning this way: Islam is a religion of billions of people. We are committed to talking with these people about religion because they share our world and they too believe in God. Therefore, it cannot be true that Islam is an existential threat. Islam simply MUST be something other than what the "Salafist" version says it is.
See above.
John Paul engaged Marxists and Communists in Poland in dialog, treating them as respectful partners and trying to find common ground with them. And although he never wavered in his condemnation of Marxism, he indeed found common ground with them.
I'm curious what "common ground" John Paul II found with Marxists? Or what "common ground" the Church found with National Socialism?
Perhaps I should go back and re-read Weigel's biography, but I'm not sure I recall John Paul urging Catholics to seek "paths of reconciliation" [with Communists], or to learn to live with respect for each other's identity.
Q: Did John Paul II urge with regards to the Church's relation with Communists that "We must not yield to fear or pessimism. Rather, we must cultivate optimism and hope"?
In aggreement with Spencer, I think that "the honest dialogue for which [Benedict] calls can proceed on the basis of comforting fictions, but only by confronting the reality of what the various sects and schools of Islam teach about jihad, dhimmitude, and related matters."
But (believe it or not) I'm going to agree with something Mark Shea said Friday:
Yes, 200 million is a large number and a very big problem
The thing is, a billion is an even larger number and an even bigger problem. So it still seems to me to be sane to try to cultivate relationships with the 75% of Muslims who *don't* like al-Quaeda than to treat Islam as a monolith and wind up needlessly recruiting all one billion into the enemy camp.
I'm not sure of the demographics -- Wikipedia cites the total number as "900 million and 1.4 billion" -- but you get Mark's point. There are Muslims -- religious, practicing Muslims -- today who do not share the viewpoint or the sympathies of al-Qaeda or the Taliban. What is the best means of promoting self-analysis and self-criticism with Islam AND mutual cooperation between the Muslims and Christian communities?
You seem to endlessly dance around the central issues here, preferring to focus on extremes of rhetoric. Well, in extreme situations, extremes of rhetoric are forgiveable and understandable.
I recall you expressing some concerns about "extremes of rhetoric" in a certain "torture debate" with a certain apologist a couple months ago.
To reiterate what I mentioned previously, I'm supportive of a study of the central issues, but am also of the opinion that in extreme situations, extremes of rhetoric can just as easily throw fuel to the fire of anger and hysteria and provoke exactly the kind of inflammatory reactions that spell the very death of dialogue.
How bad is the threat we face from Islam? That is the question. And it's one that you don't seem interested in trying to answer. "Not too bad," you seem to say. "We're commmitted to dialoguing with them, so it can't be all that bad. After all, we wouldn't be committed to dialoguing with them if they were as bad as Spencer says."
Jeff, if that's your assessment of my position, you're seriously mistaken. Not to mention it flies in the face of my recognition of the present threat, as discussed on this blog. Revisit some old posts if you want on Christian-Islamic relations.
I'm not questioning the need for the exploration of the ways in which traditional Islam and traditional interpretations of the Koran has contributed to the violence we see today.
But when it comes to a categorical judgement that Muslims must "become more radical/militant if you take your faith seriously" (to quote David Jones) or "Islam's violent nature must be accepted as given" (to quote Greg Davis) -- well, no. I'm not going to render that kind of judgement on a billion people, much less Muslim friends and neighbors (who repudiate such a reading and understanding of Islam).
If there are elements within Islamic tradition that are predisposed towards violence, it falls upon Muslims to confront and adapt. But I'm not going to imply -- as such statements certainly do -- that the only solution for reconciliation and peaceful existence between Muslims and the West in this temporal life is for Muslims to abandon their faith and practice and what they hold most dear.
Now, how does your friend, Father Khalil sum up what he sees as Ratzinger's view of Islam? How does the title the section, which DOES NOT DISCUSS ANY PARTICULAR TYPE OR VARIETY OR SCHOOL OF ISLAM BUT ONLY DISCUSSES ISLAM ITSELF AS A WHOLE?
(I can write in all caps too, Jeff).
Would this be the same Kahil who asserted himself that "It is important not to confuse Islam with Islamism, but it is just as important to urge Muslims to reject Islamism a san alteration of authentic Islam and to counter this violent and invasive tendency"? (Salafist Islam spawns Islamic terrorism AsiaNews.it 4/12/2007), or Islamism, not to be confused with Islam, is a threat to the survival of the very religion it claims to represent and to the entire world?
Commenting on Regensburg and the Pope's visit to Turkey, Khalil also notes (I think correctly) that:
The Pope is thus striving to build a philosophical-theological framework centred on rationality, but a rationality which is open to the transcendental dimension.
In his trip to Turkey, Benedict XVI gave substance to this vision, applying it to a concrete situation, but his thinking remains that of Regensburg. Speaking to the Muslims, he discretely recalled the question of violence, but avoided the misunderstanding which occurred with his words at Regensburg. There, media said that the Pope identified Islam with violence. Instead, he had pointed his finger at an existing and dangerous reality, that of violence in the Islamic world, without establishing a total equivalency between Islam and violence. The proof of this, we know, lies in the fact that, at Regensburg, the Pope quoted one single verse of the Koran, the most positive, the one according to which, in Islam, on matters of faith, “there is no constriction.”
The Pope thus suggested that for authentic Islam, there can be absolutely no use for either violence or moral pressure. And quoting the much-discussed text of Manuel II Paleologus – the “novelties of Islam are just violence and evil” – he distanced himself from it, even though he did not say it was false. It was false in its generalization, but not in having sensed a danger. The Pope made clear that that is not an accusation against Islam in general, but a risk that exists in Islam. And who can deny it?
and this would be the same Khalil who also maintains that Islam needs renewal from within, not withdrawal into itself, to overcome its crisis.
I really, really think you need to rethink your approach to this whole issue. Spencer isn't doing everything and there is room for others to take other approaches. But those approaches cannot preclude a highly negative appraisal of Mohammed or of Islam as a politico-religious phenomenon.
I'm going to say this for the last time:
I do not disagree with the need for an appraisal of Mohammad or Islam "as a political-religious phenomenon" or investigating those sources within Islamic tradition itself, in the interpretation of the Koran and the applications of Sharia which have led to Islam's militant stand throughout history down to our present crisis.
I've been doing some serious reading on this very topic and will continue to do so.
I challenge everyone to go and read both the Koran and Hadith for themselves. If you haven't done that yet this is where we must go. As reasonable and rational folks we can come to an agreement on what their Holy Texts and Tradition says or doesn't say. I challenge anyone to show me that violence against non-Muslims is not explictly authorized in the Koran or Hadith?
A good friends asks - How is it possible for an American Muslim (or one of any country in which religious freedom is constitutional) to be faithful both to his religion and to his country?
My answer is this - A Muslim has to ignore a large portion of his religion, both contained within its holy text, the Koran, and their tradition, the sayings and teachings from the final or seal of the prophet. And a large number of Muslims do exactly that.
Jeff and any others - you are welcome over on my blog, specifically on my post on Islam. I am curious to get your feedback on it.
Tawfik remains a Muslim.
Sort of. In an interview he gave to America's Voice (http://www.somebodyhelpme.info/righteous/
Tawfik_Hamid/Tawfik_on_Voice_of_America_02-16-
06.mp3) back in February of last year when asked whether he was still a practicing Muslim, he said he "understands Islam in [his] own way" and that he is "a Christian by spirit, a Jew by heart, and above all a human being".
While not faulting him for believing as such, especially given his past, he cannot be considered a Muslim who accepts Islam in its fullness anymore than a cafeteria Catholic can be considered an orthodox Catholic. Nor can he, because of this, be considered a reformer who is able to help reform Islam in a way that will not turn it into something it isn't.
Other than that I find his insights into the Islamic terrorist mindset fascinating not to mention spot-on. On that, he ought to be taken very very seriously.
In order for Islam to reform it will need to use analytical critical tools (to the Koran and subsequent texts) that will change it utterly.
All good Christians pray that Islam does so. But it is an odd prayer for orthodox Christians to pray. For the same "tools" that we want (and even insists) that Islam use upon itself (even including that hoary question Did Muhammad even exists)are "tools" that had done such grave damage to Christianity.
But Islam must. It must institute its own "Muhammad Seminar" and fine-tune the tools that will excise and delete portions of the Koran, etc.
Of course, Islam can re-interpret according to some critical-historical-literary-cultural-furturist principles; turn the "violent/Satantic verses" into some symbolist mode - prumed and redigested for mystical understanding (that sort of thing). But will it succeed? Or, somply turn Islam into a tame cultural memory like many Irish hold to catholicism!
The next 3-5 years will tell us whose approach is on track.
In the meantime, there are security issues at stake. One must prepare.
Islam (worldwide) has yet to separate religion from politics - not having done so we must prepare for difficult times.
The first step is toacknowledge that this a religious conflict - even a religous war. The islamists call it such (and they are laying down the contours of the battlefield). Are they liars? If at least one half of a billion Muslims are calling this a religious conflict (war, are we insulting them by ignoring their self-designation?
Can we enter this religous conflict without being religous? At this war's conclusion what will be terms of settlement (assuming the West wins). For one - that the West insists and impose changes and corrections in Islam's doctrines and tenents of belief (those that will make it amendable to modernity).
Of course, all this can be avoided if Islam internally makes those changes and corrections. But is it capable of doing so?
If the answer to that last question is no, then a certain course of action must be taken.
Suppose, one could plead - give us more time - more conferences in more glittering locales.
That, I think, is not an option left.
Mutatis mutandis, the same kind and ecumenical Pontiff did not consider it "hysterical" to publicly describe Pentecostal Christians as "ravening wolves" in Santo Domingo (see Sandro Magister's latest column.) Did that mean that they were beyond dialog? No. Did it mean that such a dialog precluded language that highlighted the inimical and threatening face of Pentacostalism in Latin America, which was in fact less a dialog partner than a foe? Certainly not.
First, JPII saw Islam as an ally in his struggle against Communism, materialism and secularism. He did not see evangelical Pentacostalism, nor Protestantism as a whole as an ally in his struggle.
Moreover, JPII's language describing fellow Christians was abominable, regardless of their intentions. For him to describe those who acknowledge Christ as Lord and Savior as "wolves" and kiss a Koran -- whose ideas were responsible for the martyrdom of untold numbers of Christians from various denominations -- was despicable.
JPII was so enamored of Islam as an ally that Renzo Guolo, professor of the sociology of religion at the University of Trieste and an expert on Muslim fundamentalism, noted that bishops who opposed John Paul’s approach toward Islam during a 1994 consistory remembered how the pope, "who ordinarily speaks about all topics, had spread a veil of silence over the persecution of Christians in Muslim countries."
That was an excerpt from Guolo's book, "Xenophobes and Xenophiles: Italians and Islam"
Sandro Magister also wrote the following in 2005: “...the Holy See would protect its overtures of dialogue with the Muslim world through a general silence on the aggressions coming from that world, even when these struck Christians.”
Undoubtedly, JPII was a great man and a giant force for good. Nevertheless, great men often have great flaws that can define them just as much as their achievement do. In JPII's case, those flaws were a blindness toward Islam ... and the kind of prejudice against Protestants that afflicts all too many Catholics.
Yes, 200 million is a large number and a very big problem
The thing is, a billion is an even larger number and an even bigger problem. So it still seems to me to be sane to try to cultivate relationships with the 75% of Muslims who *don't* like al-Quaeda than to treat Islam as a monolith and wind up needlessly recruiting all one billion into the enemy camp.
Shea's remarks ignore the following:
1. 200 million people who hate as a matter of faith can kill a lot of innocent people. We cannot ignore them while cultivating the rest.
2. Ultimately, raw numbers are irrelevant. The Nazis never held an absolute majority in the Reichstag, not even when Hitler was appointed chancellor -- and Germany was far from being a political monolith.
Yet the Nazis were motivated enough -- and, once they got their hands on the levers of the state, powerful enough -- to drag the rest of the Germans along, whether those Germans liked it or not. Ultimately, he dragged them to destruction.
The issue with Islam is whether the radicals have enough power through the religious institutions to drag the allegedly "non-radical" majority with them. Given the lack of moral sanctions from al-Azhar, the most prominent theological center in the Sunni world -- and any fatwas from any prominent Shiite figure concerning Iran -- the answer is not to our liking.
One final point about numbers and their relative influence:
When Hitler was appointed chancellor, only two other members of his party held cabinet positions. The rest were "socially respectable" conservatives. Moreover, the generals were totally against Hitler. But Hitler outmaneuvered his opponents. He called for new elections, staged the Reichstag fire as a pretext for seizing absolute power and arranged an alliance with the generals, who wanted the Storm Troopers (whom Nazi radicals wanted to replace the traditional army) emasculated. All of this happened. The rest, as they say...
What's the point? Who's to say that the radical Muslims won't outflank and outmaneuver those "moderates" whom we should be "courting"? And how does the West prevent such outmaneuvering?
>Moreover, JPII's language describing fellow Christians was abominable, regardless of their intentions. For him to describe those who acknowledge Christ as Lord and Savior as "wolves" and kiss a Koran -- whose ideas were responsible for the martyrdom of untold numbers of Christians from various denominations -- was despicable.
I reply: JP2 was in one case was talking about Islam as a religon in general (& in similar circumstances he has praised Protestantism in general for the truth it contains) and in the other case JP2 is addressing the specific instance of Fundamentalist sects proslytizing Catholics.
It's funny Joe how you do not believe Protestant Proslytizers are "wolves". I assume that is because you really DON'T believe in EENS. You really don't believe the Infallible teaching of the Church that formal membership in the Her is nessisary as the ordinary means of salvation.
Ben'
How do you know that Joe does not believe in the infallibility of the Church's teaching?
What are any of the remarks posted here about Islam (staying on topic)touches on infaillibility?
>How do you know that Joe does not believe in the infallibility of the Church's teaching?
I reply: I accuse him specifically of denying the teaching that formal membership in the church is nessisary as the ordinary means of salvation. I did not accuse him of denying "the infallibility of the Church's teaching" since even some Protestants believe in the heresy of limited Church infalibility.
If you want to take me to task in my accusations against Joe that's fine with me. Please however make the effort to get my accusations right.
>What are any of the remarks posted here about Islam (staying on topic)touches on infaillibility?
I reply: I don't know. What does taking heterodox pot shots at the late pontif have to do with Islam?
Here is my newest post on Islam for you judgment.
http://ressourcement.blogspot.co...m-part-
two.html
Ben Yachov, what you consider "heterodox potshots" are legitimate criticism of a pope's prudential actions and decisions. I submit for your consideration the following definition of terms from Father William C. Most, courtesy of www.ourladyswarriors.org:
We must also keep in mind the distinction of three things: 1) doctrine; 2) laws; 3) prudence. The doctrine is protected by the promise of Christ, as above. Laws, not from the Holy See, but from Bishops, could contradict the Church, e. g. , by ordering bad textbooks for Catholic schools. But as to the third item, prudence or good judgment: there is no promise of Christ, no claim by the Church, to protection in prudence. Hence it is not wrong to think or even say some things are not done prudently. And if a Pope gives a practical decision on something in which morality is concerned, that is not the same as giving a teaching on a given matter.
If you were as devout a Catholic as you claim, your knowledge would match your devotion. Instead, you decide to engage in unwarranted flame wars that have nothing to do with the topic at hand, merely to satisfy some personal vendetta and indulge your lust for conflict.
One Mark Shea is enough in Catholic Blogdom, thank you very much.
> Ben Yachov, what you consider "heterodox potshots" are legitimate criticism of a pope's prudential actions and decisions.
I reply: There IS NOTHING prudent or legitimate in attacking the Pope for speaking out against heretics who PROSLATIZE Catholics out of the One True Church outside of which there is no salvation. Clearly YOU DENY formal membership in the Church is nessisary for salvation. Otherwise why would you complain the Pope's language was "abominable"? You clearly DISMISS the seriousness of Catholics leaving the Church (example"describing fellow Christians was abominable, regardless of their intentions..etc). Convicted by your own words!
I'm sorry Joe but leading Catholics out of the Church is objectively WORSE than Muslims killing Christians. Since logically the potental of loss of Salvation is worse than mere death. Go read your Bible & CCC sometime & throw out your Evengelical Literature.
Prudence dictates I REBUKE such heresy as you implied in no uncertain terms. I realise it is your custom to believe you are above criticism & that any who dare take you to task for your errors are merely dismissed as engadging unwarranted flame wars etc. But that only proves you can dish it out but you can't take it.
The Pope WAS 100% correct to call Fundie Proslatizers "wolves". Any group that targets Catholics for convertion to their sect or false religion is by definition nothing less.
To bad you believe one Christian Church is as good as another & deny that the Catholic Church alone holds the fullness of Truth. I dare you too deny this is what you in fact believe.
Ben Yachov, several points:
1. If the Catholic Church is so concerned about evangelical denominations stealing members, perhaps the Church should do a better job in catechizing those members. This isn't just a problem in South America; it's a problem in the United States, as well -- and you know it. As a regular participant on Catholic blogs, how many times have you seen Catholics complain about the mediocre sermons, the poor formation programs and the asininity that is RCIA? How many times have Catholics complained about the lukewarm spirituality in their churches and among their priests and bishops? That doesn't mean that evangelical Protestantism is necessarily the answer, but it *does* mean that the Church must re-embrace its roots to stop the hemmoraging.
2. If you truly believe that converting to a Protestant church is worse than murder, then your moral compass is broken beyond repair. Murder is an abomination.
3. If you believe that the Catholic Church is the only mechanism for salvation, then you're certainly providing an example with your Christ-like behavior. Yessirree, nothing like being a self-appointed inquisitor -- complete with the matching presumptuousness, arrogance and anger -- to show how Christ loved and saved the world from sin.
Ben Yachov, I congratulate you. You've surpassed even your mentor, Mark Shea, in obnoxiousness and bullying. Truly a worthy accomplishment, sir. For that, you deserve a 21-sphincter salute!
I'm sure Jim Scott 3rd would be mighty proud...
>That doesn't mean that evangelical Protestantism is necessarily the answer, but it *does* mean that the Church must re-embrace its roots to stop the hemmoraging.
I reply: An orthodox Catholic would say evangelical Protestantism is NOT & can never be the answer. St Augustine said schism is NEVER justified even on the admission of sinful & evil men in the leadership of the Church . Say it with me Joe. Schism IS NEVER justified.
>If you truly believe that converting to a Protestant church is worse than murder, then your moral compass is broken beyond repair. Murder is an abomination.
I reply: Leaving the Church harms the Soul & can contribute to final damnation. Murder merely kills the body. Didn't Jesus say don't fear them who can harm the body but fear the one who can harm the soul? I guess Our Lord's moral compass was broken too.
>If you believe that the Catholic Church is the only mechanism for salvation.
I reply: My question was DO YOU believe this? Clearly your non-answer speaks volumes. Plus it's predictable.
So be honest Joe. You don't really believe the Catholic Church is the True Church now do you? You believe other churches are just as good.
>Yessirree, nothing like being a self-appointed inquisitor -- complete with the matching presumptuousness, arrogance and anger --
I reply: I learned it from your example. Which is notorious.
What if I told you the truth, Ben? What if I told you that the Catholic Church, in and of itself, has no power to save anybody? What if I told you that NO church, in and of itself, has the power to save anybody? What if I told you that only Christ's blood -- which provides atonement for sin and redemption and justification for all who accept Christ's sacrifice on the cross -- has the power to save?
What would you do, then? Would you continue to foam at the mouth and denounce me as a heretic? Would you then make it your point to harass me throughout the Internet, as your true mentor, lord and savior, Mark Shea, once did?
Wouldn't that behavior be nothing more than a cover for your own idolatry -- if not of the Church as an institution, then of your own ego and anger?
But enough about me, Ben. Let me pose these questions to you, since this thread is about Islam.
Do you consider it "orthodox" behavior for any Pope to kiss a Koran?
Do you consider it "orthodox" behavior for a Pope to ignore the legitimate plight of Middle Eastern Christians because they prove to be inconvenient to this agenda of rapprochment with Islam?
Do you consider it "orthodox" behavior for a Pope to oppose a nation's liberation from a tyrannical invader (as the Pope did concerning the 1990-91 Gulf War to free Kuwait from Iraqi oppression) -- especially considering that, if the world had listened to him, Iraq would have annexed Kuwait and brutalized its residents the was Saddam Hussein brutalized his own citizens?
> What if I told you the truth, Ben? What if I told you that the Catholic Church, in and of itself, has no power to save anybody? What if I told you that NO church, in and of itself, has the power to save anybody? What if I told you that only Christ's blood -- which provides atonement for sin and redemption and justification for all who accept Christ's sacrifice on the cross -- has the power to save?
I reply: The above sounds like a Protestant confession of Faith but it is ambigious enough to admit an orthodox Catholic interpretation. Provided one overlook the obvious ommissions. But it doesn't answer my question. I asked specifically if you believe the Catholic Church is the True Church? Do believe other churches are just as good? YES, is the ONLY answer an orthodox Catholic can give. The only one.
I will answer your questions even thought you are too much a coward to answer any of mine except to be ambigious.
>Do you consider it "orthodox" behavior for any Pope to kiss a Koran?
I reply: The act of Kissing is a subjective, morally neutral act. I can kiss the Queen of England's hand, it doesn't me I confess Her supreme governor of the Church in England over the Pope. My Coptic Catholic friend once told me in the east some people might kiss a gift if it's given to them. Without knowing the Pope's intention we can't judge his action orthodox or heterodox. OTOH If the Pope ever SAID explicitly & unambigiously "the Koran is an equal divine revelation to the Bible." that would be heresy.
>Do you consider it "orthodox" behavior for a Pope to ignore the legitimate plight of Middle Eastern Christians because they prove to be inconvenient to this agenda of rapprochment with Islam?
I reply: Didn't you just quote me something on prudent judgements? You either don't really know the difference or this is just another one of your red herrings. In short I reject your simplistic characterization the Pope's prudent judgements on what pastoral actions to impliment & I point out by definition they are outside the catagories of "orthodox" vs "heterodox". Much like for example the issue of Communion in the Hand.
>Do you consider it "orthodox" behavior for a Pope to oppose a nation's liberation from a tyrannical invader (as the Pope did concerning the 1990-91 Gulf War to free Kuwait from Iraqi oppression) -- especially considering that, if the world had listened to him, Iraq would have annexed Kuwait and brutalized its residents the was Saddam Hussein brutalized his own citizens.
I reply: Another Red Herring since this falls under the realm of prudent judement not Divinely revealed doctrinal or moral truth.
Now, yes or no do you believe the Catholic Church is the sole One True Church? Or do you believe other "churches" are just as good and on the objective level it doesn't really matter which you belong too as long as you confess Jesus? Any loyal orthodox Catholic should be able to answer with a simple "Yes" without hesitation and without dodging with some red herring.
Come on Joe answer a straight forward question for once in your freakin life & stop trying to pull a Bill Clinton. I don't think you can do it. You have neither the guts nor the honor to own up to what you really believe.
clarification:
>I asked specifically if you believe the Catholic Church is the True Church? Do believe other churches are just as good? YES, is the ONLY answer an orthodox Catholic can give to the first question.No is the the only question one can give for the second. The only one.
Ben,
I once had an Eastern Orthodox mother tell me that she would rather see her daughter become a prostitute and an addict than become an evangelical Christian.
Maybe you can explain her gogly logic.
God's gift of salvation does not trump his Natural Law - one leaving the Church (usually for deeply emotional reasons) but lives righteously according to the Natural Law (even as expressed within the evangelical churches) is not all a goner.
>I once had an Eastern Orthodox mother tell me that she would rather see her daughter become a prostitute and an addict than become an evangelical Christian.
I reply: That makes no sense. Since it's from her perspective the difference between two different kinds of mortally sinful actions. For the above analogy to be relavant she would have to say "I would rather my daughter be murdered while inside the EOC than to see her become an apostate & die outside it & lose her soul."**
So your analogy is irrelavant.
>Maybe you can explain her gogly logic.
I reply: No I can't. it different from what I am saying & it is not logical.
>God's gift of salvation does not trump his Natural Law - one leaving the Church (usually for deeply emotional reasons) but lives righteously according to the Natural Law (even as expressed within the evangelical churches) is not all a goner.
I reply: Leaving the Church is objectively a sin no different(from the viewpoint of the fate of the unrepentant sinner) than prostitution or murder. Now Subjectively what is in their hearts & how culpible they are is known & judged only by God. But the objective evil of it remains.
Thus it is heretical & disloyal for a so called %
>I once had an Eastern Orthodox mother tell me that she would rather see her daughter become a prostitute and an addict than become an evangelical Christian.
I reply: That makes no sense. Since it's from her perspective the difference between two different kinds of mortally sinful actions. For the above analogy to be relavant she would have to say "I would rather my daughter be murdered while inside the EOC than to see her become an apostate & die outside it & lose her soul."**
So your analogy is irrelavant.
>Maybe you can explain her gogly logic.
I reply: No I can't. it different from what I am saying & it is not logical.
>God's gift of salvation does not trump his Natural Law - one leaving the Church (usually for deeply emotional reasons) but lives righteously according to the Natural Law (even as expressed within the evangelical churches) is not all a goner.
I reply: Leaving the Church is objectively a sin no different(from the viewpoint of the fate of the unrepentant sinner) than prostitution or murder. Now Subjectively what is in their hearts & how culpible they are is known & judged only by God. But the objective evil of it remains.
Thus it is heretical & disloyal for a so called "Catholic" too attack the Pope for denouncing those who lead Catholics into the objectively evil act of leaving the church.
Like I said the Pope has expressed good will & praised Protestantism for it holding SOME truth. He has done the same with Islam. But that is different from either Muslims or Fundie Prots misleading Catholics into voluntarly abandoning the Faith.
Joe obviously can't make that distiction since he clearly believes one Church is as good as another & it doesn't objectively matter which church you join as long as you "love Jesus". Wrong. There is only One True Church. God can save the invincibly ignorant non-Catholics but that doesn't make their sect correct or recognized by God.
Sorry about the weird double post.
OK Ben, you got me.
My daughter sits in a Calvary Chapel. Next time I see her I'll tell her she's goign to hell.
I despise nuances. The resolution to the questions you keep bringing up must be that blunt and practical.
>I despise nuances.
I reply: Obviously, which can only lead to a overly simplistic fundamentalistism.
>My daughter sits in a Calvary Chapel. Next time I see her I'll tell her she's goign to hell.
I reply: I somehow doubt you will. But then again not being fimilar with the circumstances of her not belonging to the True Church I couldn't comment. Why you even dragged her into this is a mystery to me. Both my daughers have autism. Tragic isn't it? But quite irrelavent to what I am saying.
>The resolution to the questions you keep bringing up must be that blunt and practical.
I reply: Asking a self styled "Catholic" who presumes to question the very orthodoxy & prudental judgement of the Vicar of Jesus Christ, if he really believes the fundamental dogmas of the Faith is MERELY interjecting consistancy and fairness.
Asking a self styled "Catholic" who presumes to question the very orthodoxy & prudental judgement of the Vicar of Jesus Christ, if he really believes the fundamental dogmas of the Faith is MERELY interjecting consistancy and fairness (emphasis added).
Ben, you just exposed yourself with that statement. You believe that no Catholic has any right to question prudential papal decisions, despite the definition I cited several boxes ago.
That, dear fellow, is papolatry, not genuine faith.
Moreover, all of your rants about Protestants and Orthodox expose you as a Feeneyite. Fr. Leonard Feeney had the exact same view of NEES that you do -- and he was excommunicated by that great modernist and liberal, Pope Pius XII!
If you want to talk about heterodoxy and heresy, sir, please look in the mirror first.
Clearly Joe you are still to much of a coward to answer a simple & direct question. I gotta love the tactic of asking me questions in order to take the heat off of you admiting you true beliefs. But I am not fooled.
>Ben, you just exposed yourself with that statement. You believe that no Catholic has any right to question prudential papal decisions, despite the definition I cited several boxes ago.
I reply: I already answered you from before.
>That, dear fellow, is papolatry, not genuine faith.
I reply: Another Red Herring.
>Moreover, all of your rants about Protestants and Orthodox expose you as a Feeneyite. Fr. Leonard Feeney had the exact same view of NEES that you do --
I reply: You are beyond ignorant Joey.
Feeney denied baptism by desire & he taught NO persons who are not Formally Catholic can be saved. I hold the Catholic View that invincibly ignorant non-Catholic persons have a chance at salvation & I certainly believe in BBD.
You are employing this tactic of counter accusation as a diversion because you are ashamed to admit your true beliefs which are no different than the heresy of Religious Indifferentism. In your world as long as someone is Christian they need not become Catholic. One Church is as good as another. You don't have the guts to say otherwise.
>and he was excommunicated by that great modernist and liberal, Pope Pius XII!
I reply: Technically Feeney was excomunicated for disobedience not heresy. He was ordered to NOT teach his heterodox understanding of EENS & he refused so he got canned. I support the action of the Vatican.
>If you want to talk about heterodoxy and heresy, sir, please look in the mirror first.
I reply: I believe without question EVERY Dogma of the Catholic Church & I give my accent to ALL her non-Infalliable teachings as per Vatican One.
Can you say the same? Clearly you are reluctant to do so. Coward! You claim to be Catholic why are you so ashamed to confess Catholic belief?
You are nothing more than a social convervative with an Evangelical Protestant eccleciology.
I predict Joe you will continue to ignore the question & try to change the subject to Mark Shea. You are if anything predictable.
Q: Seeing how this personal debate is wildly veering into subjects that aren't relevant to the post at hand, could I persuade the two of you to carry it elsewhere?
Christopher,
It's your blog Chris. But I would like a straight answer from Joe for once instead of more evasion & red herrings.
Unless the rule is ONLY the late Pope may be questioned about his orthodoxy & the prudence of his pastoral policies & his more vicious critics are sacrosanct.
The last thing we need here is a case of D'Hippolitoatry.
Interesting meeting of minds between moderate Islamism and liberal cathollicism.
http://www.commentarymagazine.co...on/464#more-
464
Commenting by HaloScan
