Catholic priest converts to Islam

[ralphinal]

Like the IRA bombing train fulls of British civilians?

Ah, the IRA. Please let me begin by saying that they disgust me with such actions. My father’s side of my family is Protestant Irish. My mother’s is Italian Catholic. I wanted to start there.

When we look at Ireland, there is a unique dynamic. By and large, the Protestant Population is one that was introduced by England in the hopes of subjugation of the Catholics. That said, there have been many abuses of the other group by the ruling class, especially in Northern Ireland. The Protestants in Northern Ireland represent the majority there, however they are a minority in the whole land. Therefore, they have a unique fear of being turned into a minority group and losing what control that they have (a similar mentality to the whites of South Africa 30 years ago, without the violence to sustain power). The IRA, starting with the noble goal of re-uniting the nation, turned to horrible acts of terrorism in the hope of bleeding Northern Ireland white and forcing capitulation. Terroism as a political tool is one used by two groups: those who feel that have no other voice or means to stand up to a larger foe and cowards who know that they will be destroyed if the confront the military so they target those who cannot defend themselves. You can decide which is which.

If you do a google search, you can find atrocities on both sides. However, I would love it if you can find proof that Catholic (or Protestant) doctrine led to the violence or if you can show that the Catholic Church encouraged or supported these acts. Even though the groups are divided along religion, the acts are all about politics.

 

[bobzills]

Even though the groups are divided along religion, the acts are all about politics.

However, does religion play any role in the hostility experienced between the two groups?

 

[ralphinal]

However, does religion play any role in the hostility experienced between the two groups?

Yes, but it is much more complex than that. To the Catholic groups, the Protestants represent the English invasion of the land, as that was the reason they were moved there in the first place. By now, however, the Irish Protestants have been there long enough to truly call themselves Irish. That does not stop them from committing crimes against Catholics, although not on the same scale as the IRA. After all, they are in charge of Northern Ireland. My point is that there is no Catholic Doctrine that promotes these acts. I doubt that you could find many clergy that did as well.

For all of the talk of IRA vs. Muslim Terrorists, there is still the issue that the Muslim teachings can be seen as containing commands of violence. True, these may be out of context or mis-interpreted, but the words are there in some form.

Now, back to the Protestants in the United Kingdom. Do not forget that up until recently, it was forbidden for a Catholic to hold office. Even today, a Catholic cannot be King and if one converts, he must abdicate. Many, many Catholics were killed through the years by British law. The resentment of this is still felt in Northern Ireland.

 

[IvanKaramozov]

Ah, the IRA. Please let me begin by saying that they disgust me with such actions. My father’s side of my family is Protestant Irish. My mother’s is Italian Catholic. I wanted to start there.

When we look at Ireland, there is a unique dynamic. By and large, the Protestant Population is one that was introduced by England in the hopes of subjugation of the Catholics. That said, there have been many abuses of the other group by the ruling class, especially in Northern Ireland. The Protestants in Northern Ireland represent the majority there, however they are a minority in the whole land. Therefore, they have a unique fear of being turned into a minority group and losing what control that they have (a similar mentality to the whites of South Africa 30 years ago, without the violence to sustain power). The IRA, starting with the noble goal of re-uniting the nation, turned to horrible acts of terrorism in the hope of bleeding Northern Ireland white and forcing capitulation. Terroism as a political tool is one used by two groups: those who feel that have no other voice or means to stand up to a larger foe and cowards who know that they will be destroyed if the confront the military so they target those who cannot defend themselves. You can decide which is which.

If you do a google search, you can find atrocities on both sides. However, I would love it if you can find proof that Catholic (or Protestant) doctrine led to the violence or if you can show that the Catholic Church encouraged or supported these acts. Even though the groups are divided along religion, the acts are all about politics.

I never said Roman Catholicism justafied the actions of the IRA, however just about EVERY single thing you stated there are the primary motivating factors of the IRA can be applied to the Muslim world.

 

[IvanKaramozov]

Yes, but it is much more complex than that. To the Catholic groups, the Protestants represent the English invasion of the land, as that was the reason they were moved there in the first place. By now, however, the Irish Protestants have been there long enough to truly call themselves Irish. That does not stop them from committing crimes against Catholics, although not on the same scale as the IRA. After all, they are in charge of Northern Ireland. My point is that there is no Catholic Doctrine that promotes these acts. I doubt that you could find many clergy that did as well.

For all of the talk of IRA vs. Muslim Terrorists, there is still the issue that the Muslim teachings can be seen as containing commands of violence. True, these may be out of context or mis-interpreted, but the words are there in some form.

Now, back to the Protestants in the United Kingdom. Do not forget that up until recently, it was forbidden for a Catholic to hold office. Even today, a Catholic cannot be King and if one converts, he must abdicate. Many, many Catholics were killed through the years by British law. The resentment of this is still felt in Northern Ireland.

There is no Muslim doctrin that allows the murder of women and children, you have given a very inteligent and through analysis of the IRA terrorists, I don’t understand why you don’t look at the roots of Muslim terrorism as just a conplex, just as motivated by external agressiona nd foreign opression etc.

 

[ralphinal]

There is no Muslim doctrin that allows the murder of women and children,

From all of the research I have done on the subject (which is not a HUGE amount, but enough), I agree. However, I find it strange that those who carry out the acts ignore that fact as well.

you have given a very inteligent and through analysis of the IRA terrorists,

Thank you. When I was your age, the IRA and the groups in Isreal were the Terrorists that were studied. There are some similarities between Hamas and the IRA that I do not see duplicated in al Quieda.

I don’t understand why you don’t look at the roots of Muslim terrorism as just a conplex, just as motivated by external agressiona nd foreign opression etc.

Oh, my friend, I have. Many times over. I fluctuate from seeing them as a product of poverty and poor education amplified by Western colonialization to a group of pure evil motivated only by a desire to destroy those who do not agree with them. If I may, I would like to mention a couple of sticking points to me. First, the leadership seems to be well educated and have money (in bin Ladin’s case, a lot of both). Therefore, they cannot be motivated by lack of opportunities or basic human needs. Second, they are not fighting ofr a unified ethnic or national homeland. Most Muslims are not Arabs. They even target Muslims of different Sects. Third, by seeing them as a product of external agression and foreign oppression, you lose sight of the internal atrocities that these people commit. Would there be Islamic Terror groups if there was no oil or western intervention in the Middle East? Yes, but we would look at it in the same way we see African Tribal warfare.

 

[Verisimilitude]

There is no Muslim doctrin that allows the murder of women and children…

Please show the Muslim doctrine that prohibits it. Does your qualification then suggest there is doctrine that allows the murder of men?

And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah is worse than killing. And fight not with them at Al-Masjid-al-Haram (the sanctuary at Makkah), unless they (first) fight you there. But if they attack you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.
( سورة البقرة , Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #191)

This is one example of many in the Qur’an. Will you argue it is not murder but killing in justified self defense? Is it limited to only men? Is it limited to only non-Muslim men?

And if We had ordered them (saying), “kill yourselves (i.e. the innnocent ones kill the guilty ones) or leave your homes,” very few of them would have done it; but if they had done what they were told, it would have been better for them, and would have strengthened their (Faith);
( سورة النساء , An-Nisa, Chapter #4, Verse #66)

The god of Islam says it is ok to kill non-Muslim women in this verse:

They are the ones who disbelieved (in the Oneness of Allah Islamic Monotheism), and hindered you from AlMasjidalHaram (the sacred mosque of Makkah) and the sacrificial animals, detained from reaching their place of sacrifice. **Had there not been believing men and believing women whom you did not know, that you may kill them, **and on whose account a sin would have been committed by you without (your) knowledge, that Allah might bring into His Mercy whom He will, if they (the believers and the disbelievers) should have been apart, We verily had punished those of them who disbelieved, with painful torment.
( سورة الفتح , Al-Fath, Chapter #48, Verse #25)

He also gives pardon if you (Muslims) made a mistake and killed Muslim men and women when fighting.

The non-Muslim women and children are of little consequence in war excpet as booty if they are not killed, but their killing is not prohibited.

 

[IvanKaramozov]

From all of the research I have done on the subject (which is not a HUGE amount, but enough), I agree. However, I find it strange that those who carry out the acts ignore that fact as well.

It’s actual interesting to see the way they get around that. One claimed that woman should not be out of the house, so if he detonated a bomb on a train and woman and children were killed, he was not guilty as they shoulden’t be there in the first place and there death was therefore an accident.

Thank you. When I was your age, the IRA and the groups in Isreal were the Terrorists that were studied. There are some similarities between Hamas and the IRA that I do not see duplicated in al Quieda.

Of course, and it’s always a bad idea to start generalizing all terrorist movements.

Oh, my friend, I have. Many times over. I fluctuate from seeing them as a product of poverty and poor education amplified by Western colonialization to a group of pure evil motivated only by a desire to destroy those who do not agree with them.

it’s complicted

If I may, I would like to mention a couple of sticking points to me. First, the leadership seems to be well educated and have money (in bin Ladin’s case, a lot of both). Therefore, they cannot be motivated by lack of opportunities or basic human needs.

I would like to respond to this in two primary ways. Firstly, look at the communist/anarchist underground movements and terrorists groups in Czarist Russia, also predominately led by inteligent, well educated, wealthy students/young professionals, however is there any question that the primary cause of the explosion of violence of Russia was the brutal opression of the people?

Secondly, Gallup looked at this, MOST of the Muslims who say that the terrorist attacks were justified were well educated/professionals, however they were often marked by a sense of humiliation from sujugation by foreign powers, political frustration, and an acute sense that they were in immediate danger from foreign agression

media.gallup.com/WorldPoll/PD…3.06_FINAL.pdf

Thirdly, I would encourage you to look to a book “Leaderless Jihad”, the author is a M.D and forensic psychologist who was ofrmerly employed by the CIA, he conducted a scientific, empericle study of “far enemy” terrorism, very interesting results

Second, they are not fighting ofr a unified ethnic or national homeland. Most Muslims are not Arabs. They even target Muslims of different Sects.

True, however Bin Laden is certianly not a traditional Muslim, he disreguards the four traditional schools of religious discourse, issues his own Fatwa’s, kills women and children, and excommunicates other Muslims, all of these things are in radical opposition to traditional Islam. As for the homeland, that varries, some terrorism is nationalist/ethnocentic in origion, such as Palistinian or Chetchnian terrorism, others, like Bin Laden srn’t fighting for a national homeland but for n ideology, a great deal of infighting has occured as a rusult of the various anti-colonial movemens that cropped up during the 18th/19th centuries.

Third, by seeing them as a product of external agression and foreign oppression, you lose sight of the internal atrocities that these people commit.

I don’t think so. Let me explain. When Ali-Wahaab first began his movement he had a few goals in mind, one was the lesser goal of soem Suffi practices he considered heretical, but the primary motivation of his movement was anti-colonial, and how to repell foreign opression, and bring the Muslim world back to it’s former glory, his solution was to revive “pure” Islam, the historical validity of his conception is debateable, but his goal was not, he beleived that an embraceing of his radical puritinism the Muslim world would rise to it’s former greatness, this immediatly set up Muslims who feel differently as enemies, in this prism a great deal of infighting makes sense, in fact Wahaab commited numerous horrific atrocities aghinst fellow Muslims, the Egyptians had to ush him back

Would there be Islamic Terror groups if there was no oil or western intervention in the Middle East? Yes, but we would look at it in the same way we see African Tribal warfare.

I disagea for the reasons stated above, but am interested in your response

 

[ralphinal]

I would like to respond to this in two primary ways. Firstly, look at the communist/anarchist underground movements and terrorists groups in Czarist Russia, also predominately led by inteligent, well educated, wealthy students/young professionals, however is there any question that the primary cause of the explosion of violence of Russia was the brutal opression of the people?

Excellent point. However, the Russian Revolution was intended to create a more egalitarian system that would be a sign to all oppressed peoples to overthrow the bonds of the oppressive ruling classes. Much as the American Revolution showed that people could stand up to a king and demand “freedom,” workers could stand up to rulers and demand “ownership.” The Western, modern thought was part of the ideology of the Revolutionaries. Can we say that Islamic terrorists seek to make life better for everyone? Would our lives in the US be better if we were under the rules of the KSA?

Secondly, Gallup looked at this, MOST of the Muslims who say that the terrorist attacks were justified were well educated/professionals, however they were often marked by a sense of humiliation from sujugation by foreign powers, political frustration, and an acute sense that they were in immediate danger from foreign agression

media.gallup.com/WorldPoll/PD…3.06_FINAL.pdf

That link would not open for me. Was this poll done of Muslims living in the West or worldwide? I do understand the whole humiliation and subjugation issue. I just find it silly that they are worried about being subjugated by us but still allow some of the most atricious human rights violations in their own countries.

Thirdly, I would encourage you to look to a book “Leaderless Jihad”, the author is a M.D and forensic psychologist who was ofrmerly employed by the CIA, he conducted a scientific, empericle study of “far enemy” terrorism, very interesting results

I will try. Time is short for another book, but the topic does interest me.

True, however Bin Laden is certianly not a traditional Muslim, he disreguards the four traditional schools of religious discourse, issues his own Fatwa’s, kills women and children, and excommunicates other Muslims, all of these things are in radical opposition to traditional Islam. As for the homeland, that varries, some terrorism is nationalist/ethnocentic in origion, such as Palistinian or Chetchnian terrorism, others, like Bin Laden srn’t fighting for a national homeland but for n ideology, a great deal of infighting has occured as a rusult of the various anti-colonial movemens that cropped up during the 18th/19th centuries.

I am not sure that there is a true “traditional Muslim” leader. Each seems to use the faith in a different way to control the populace. I will accept that he is not a good example of a Muslim leader, as most do not advocate violence against everyone else. Now about the Colonial issue. When was the last colony freed? How long until a nation with some way to provide an economy can be expected to stand on its own? The whole colonial thing can be overstated. We were a colony, too. It did not take centuries for us to no longer blame England for our ills. When will they overcome the disadvantage of having been a colony?

I don’t think so. Let me explain. When Ali-Wahaab first began his movement he had a few goals in mind, one was the lesser goal of soem Suffi practices he considered heretical, but the primary motivation of his movement was anti-colonial, and how to repell foreign opression, and bring the Muslim world back to it’s former glory, his solution was to revive “pure” Islam, the historical validity of his conception is debateable, but his goal was not, he beleived that an embraceing of his radical puritinism the Muslim world would rise to it’s former greatness, this immediatly set up Muslims who feel differently as enemies, in this prism a great deal of infighting makes sense, in fact Wahaab commited numerous horrific atrocities aghinst fellow Muslims, the Egyptians had to ush him back

Excellent point. May point, and I did not make it clear, is that too often we ignore the attacks on other Muslims or on other groups because we hold to this “anti-West” ideology. At some point, we are not the only opposition

I disagea for the reasons stated above, but am interested in your response

Here is how I see it. If there was no oil over there, our only interest would be assisting Isreal, and that is a limited military one. We would not care what they were doing, much like sub-Saharan Africa. Mineral wealth creates Western greed. We would not export our culture, as there is no real wealth to be gained. How would we be targeted? We would not be. Instead, all of the fighting would be tribal/ideological. And the West would not care until it became a massacre, like some of the African conflicts of the last 20 years.

 

[IvanKaramozov]

Excellent point. However, the Russian Revolution was intended to create a more egalitarian system that would be a sign to all oppressed peoples to overthrow the bonds of the oppressive ruling classes. Much as the American Revolution showed that people could stand up to a king and demand “freedom,” workers could stand up to rulers and demand “ownership.” The Western, modern thought was part of the ideology of the Revolutionaries. Can we say that Islamic terrorists seek to make life better for everyone? Would our lives in the US be better if we were under the rules of the KSA?

Well, I think we need to be clear who we are talking about, I think Bin Laden surely beleives the world would be better under Islamic rule, I think most Chetchnian/Palistinian terrorists just want to live their lives. Ultimatley I will admit that I can’t really give that a good answer.

That link would not open for me. Was this poll done of Muslims living in the West or worldwide? I do understand the whole humiliation and subjugation issue. I just find it silly that they are worried about being subjugated by us but still allow some of the most atricious human rights violations in their own countries.

I’ll try to repost it.

It’s across the Muslim world, they asked the question, “were the 9/11 attacks totally justafied” 93% said no, 7% said yes, The reaserchers then looked into the 7% of the population that said yes.

I agrea the fear may be exagerated however many of the authoritarian states are despised by the population, and the people we support the attacks, however they view the US as being a force that prevents them from overthrowing the hated authoritarian states. As for the fear, I agea there is no threat of the US invaiding Egypt, however was there any real threat of Iraq openly attacking the US, I certianly woulden’t say so, yet plently of American’s beleived it at the time.

I will try. Time is short for another book, but the topic does interest me.

I know what you mean

This summer I’ll finially be able to read more, but now I’m swamped

I am not sure that there is a true “traditional Muslim” leader.

I’m sorry, I should have been clear, I intended to say “Traditional Islam”

Each seems to use the faith in a different way to control the populace. I will accept that he is not a good example of a Muslim leader, as most do not advocate violence against everyone else.

alright

Now about the Colonial issue. When was the last colony freed? How long until a nation with some way to provide an economy can be expected to stand on its own? The whole colonial thing can be overstated. We were a colony, too. It did not take centuries for us to no longer blame England for our ills. When will they overcome the disadvantage of having been a colony?

Well I think you are right in that being a former Coloney isin’t an infinite excuse, however I think there are impoirtant differences.

Can you really say that the opression of Americans and the American colonies and the Indian/Iranian/ Egyptian was truely comparable in scale?

Excellent point. May point, and I did not make it clear, is that too often we ignore the attacks on other Muslims or on other groups because we hold to this “anti-West” ideology. At some point, we are not the only opposition

I don’t think I get your point, could you expand on it a bit?

Here is how I see it. If there was no oil over there, our only interest would be assisting Isreal, and that is a limited military one. We would not care what they were doing, much like sub-Saharan Africa. Mineral wealth creates Western greed. We would not export our culture, as there is no real wealth to be gained. How would we be targeted? We would not be. Instead, all of the fighting would be tribal/ideological. And the West would not care until it became a massacre, like some of the African conflicts of the last 20 years.

A good point, however I would stress these points
1-Most of the present infighting can be traced back, directly and clearly, to anti-colonial movements.
2-Colonialism preceeded the race to control oil resources, and even before it was known how oil rich the nations were
3-Many sectarian movements, in the Middle East and Africa, can be traced back directly to Colonialism, not simply as anti-colonial movements as in the Arab world, but as a result of Colonial powers attempting to stir up ethnic divisions so as to divide the population and prohibit a unified popular front, additionally can we truely say that the Tribal conflcits in Arica would exist to the extent that they do without the Berlin Conference?

 

[IvanKaramozov]

media.gallup.com/WorldPoll/PDF/GALLUP+MUSLIM+STUDIES_Moderate+v+Extremist+Views_11.13.06_FINAL.pdf

That should take you to the study

 

[bobzills]

.
2-Colonialism preceeded the race to control oil resources, and even before it was known how oil rich the nations were.

The USA is obviously an imperialist power trying to impose its way of thinking and culture (???) on the world today. I don;t know though if thie entered into the mind of the priest as he converted from Catholicism to Islam.

 

[ralphinal]

The USA is obviously an imperialist power trying to impose its way of thinking and culture (???) on the world today. I don;t know though if thie entered into the mind of the priest as he converted from Catholicism to Islam.

If I may be so bold as to answer this point. One of the reasons cited for his conversion was the witness of how Muslims pray 5 times a day, so obviously they must be inherently holier and closer to God. There are two issues raised in this thread with that one. First, it is a requirement of the faith. How can you say that a man who is compelled to pray five times a day is holier than one who chooses to attend daily mass and prayes multiple times in a day? The second one led to this discussion I am having with Ivan. It is not really a valid point to say “See how they pray? They are holier than Christians” without “See the violence and opression in these lands? They have issues.” Ivan, as he so often does, is providing a logical counterpoint to my incessent ramblings. Though he is not Muslim, he sees the other side more clearly than most.

Now, what you posted is legitamate. We do not know what entered the mind of this priest, if he was a priest at all (not proven).

 

[ralphinal]

Thanks for the poll. I wonder if the answers would have been different if there was a “somewhat justified” or how they went along national lines.

Well, I think we need to be clear who we are talking about, I think Bin Laden surely beleives the world would be better under Islamic rule, I think most Chetchnian/Palistinian terrorists just want to live their lives. Ultimatley I will admit that I can’t really give that a good answer.

No one can, although there have been those on this board who say they want the Constitution replaced by Shiara law. Personally, I do not understand why when we (any western power, including the UN) force a regime change, we don’t copy our governement there.

I agrea the fear may be exagerated however many of the authoritarian states are despised by the population, and the people we support the attacks, however they view the US as being a force that prevents them from overthrowing the hated authoritarian states. As for the fear, I agea there is no threat of the US invaiding Egypt, however was there any real threat of Iraq openly attacking the US, I certianly woulden’t say so, yet plently of American’s beleived it at the time.

Iraq is a bad example. We would have attacked them had 9/11 not occured. This administration was too tied up to Haliburton not to. That is not a topic for this thread, or forum, for that matter. However, I will say that the leadership in Iraq would have encouraged or assisted an attack on the US if they had been able to get away with it. Now, can it be said that we support most of these oppressive governements? Yes. A good question is why.

I’m sorry, I should have been clear, I intended to say “Traditional Islam”

I thought so.

Well I think you are right in that being a former Coloney isin’t an infinite excuse, however I think there are impoirtant differences.

Can you really say that the opression of Americans and the American colonies and the Indian/Iranian/ Egyptian was truely comparable in scale?

Yes and no. If you look at it from the native populations point of view, ours was worse. If you look at it from the colonists point of view, it was better. There is a flaw in the definition of emerging (third world) nation that requires it to have been a colony. Korea, The United States, Canada, Austrailia were all colonies and are not still held back by it. I am not sure what it is, but there is a reason that some nations can overcome it and some cannot.

I don’t think I get your point, could you expand on it a bit?

Right now we are the targets. Other sects would be too, if we didn’t draw more attention. The issue is not as clear as an anti-west sentiment, or anti-US. It is an us against them mentality that cannot be grasped if you are not “us.”

A good point, however I would stress these points
1-Most of the present infighting can be traced back, directly and clearly, to anti-colonial movements.

True, but that fight is done.

2-Colonialism preceeded the race to control oil resources, and even before it was known how oil rich the nations were
3-Many sectarian movements, in the Middle East and Africa, can be traced back directly to Colonialism, not simply as anti-colonial movements as in the Arab world, but as a result of Colonial powers attempting to stir up ethnic divisions so as to divide the population and prohibit a unified popular front, additionally can we truely say that the Tribal conflcits in Arica would exist to the extent that they do without the Berlin Conference?

Somewhat true. That was a defense used by Iraq when they invaded Qwait. It had been a part of Iraq before the British spit it up. IN africa, the concept of the Nation-State did not exist prior to colonialism. There were no “nations” and no cities as we use the term (sub-Saharan). Once different tribes were included in the same nation, there was a possibility for trouble. You are correct that it was made worse by outside influence.

 

[Ignatius]

I don’t know. The title of the piece which I linked to reads something like: “Bristish Catholic p;riest converted to Islam.” That’s what it says. And if you look at the first post I wrote on this, I was asking for more information on this individual.

Since there is no substantiation, as I said, there is no evidence that he was ever a priest, it is a false article!

I am shocked, shocked I tell you, to find falsehoods published in a British tabloid!