French church attacked during Mass, priest murdered [CC]

[St_Francis]

By mistake I hit submit instead of preview, so posted before I finished.

OneSheep:

I was looking at this:

The article was written in a way that gives the impression that Fr. Rutler was responding to the Archbishop, but there is no proof of this. It is the articles’ author who is setting up the differences in approach when there need be no differences at all. There is a time for protection, and there is a time for prayer and brotherhood. Clearly, based on the video in the link provided by EstesBob, the community of Rouen turned to prayer and brotherhood in the aftermath, which I think provided inspiration for all of us!

Well, I think the Archbishop and Fr Rutler are addressing different aspects of the situation: The AB how to respond to what had just happened in Rouen, and Fr Rutler to what is happening internationally,so I can agree with both and also agree with you that the author of the article went way too far.

Point well taken!

It can be tricky on the Internet.

 

[St_Francis]

If Muslims “who want to dominate the world have the stronger argument,” then a very large number of Muslims must really be missing out by misinterpreting their scriptures.

Islam Condemns Violence

“Not only did the terrorists hijack planes and destroy life, but they also hijacked the peaceful religion of Islam and split the brother and sisterhood of mankind.”

(Yusuf Islam)

The sanctity of Human Life

Al- Quran 6:151

“…take not life, which God hath made sacred, except by way of justice and law: thus doth He command you, that ye may learn wisdom.”

Islam considers all life forms as sacred. However, the sanctity of human life is accorded a special place. The first and the foremost basic right of a human being is the right to live. The Glorious Quran says:

Al- Quran 5:32

“…if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people.”

History of Tolerance

Muslims ruled Spain for roughly 800 years. During this time, and up until they were finally forced out, the non-Muslims there were alive and flourishing. Additionally, Christian and Jewish minorities have survived in the Muslim lands of the Middle East for centuries. Countries such as Egypt, Morocco, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan all have significant Christian and/or Jewish populations.

This is not surprising to a Muslim, for his faith prohibits him from forcing others to see his point of view. The Glorious Quran says:

Al- Quran 2:256

“Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in God hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And God heareth and knoweth all things.”

emuslim.com/islamagainstVoilence.asp

There are many schools of thought in Islam, but those who argue for violent aggression in taking over the world 1. have a different idea of Justice: i.e., their idea of just war is when they have a reasonable chance of success–that’s it. 2. have many verses which explain how to wage war of Islamic conquest; those verses appear later in time; later verses abrogate earlier verses, and 3. Mohammed led an exemplary life, the more closely one follows his example, the better a Moslem he will be, and Mohammed dos engage in these battles for Islamic conquest.

[.

I am not denying the existence of peaceful Moslems; they have existed since the first split just after Mohammed’s death. However, in order to truly understand the situation, one must understand that the terrorists can completely justify their actions from the Koran and Haddith.](http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/violence.aspx)

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I am not denying the existence of peaceful Moslems; they have existed since the first split just after Mohammed’s death. However, in order to truly understand the situation, one must understand that the terrorists can completely justify their actions from the Koran and Haddith.

That means very little. Sure, they can justify their actions by cherry picking from their religious texts. But if you allow someone hostile to Christianity to cherry pick verses from the Bible, they could show how we could justify equally heinous acts. But we don’t do that because we do not define our Christianity by cherry picking from the scriptures. It seems only fair to afford Muslims the same understanding.

 

[Seamus_L]

And today another priest was stabbed in Belgium by an asylum seeker dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3717169/Belgian-priest-65-stabbed-home-refused-asylum-seeker-money-letting-use-shower.html

 

[St_Francis]

That means very little. Sure, they can justify their actions by cherry picking from their religious texts. But if you allow someone hostile to Christianity to cherry pick verses from the Bible, they could show how we could justify equally heinous acts. But we don’t do that because we do not define our Christianity by cherry picking from the scriptures. It seems only fair to afford Muslims the same understanding.

Notice that there actually are verses advocating violent aggression: who decides? who interprets? It’s not like those verses do not exist, and it’s not like Moslems have never lived by them.

Before 622, the Moslems were a small group among dozens of others; within 150 years, they had spread from Spain to India. Documents show that in the 500s, there were 750 Catholic bishops in North Africa. In 900 (iirc), there were 2. The Catholic population was that reduced by the depredations of that warlike group of Moslems.

Now, I simply responded to HolyCrusader’s post to show that not all the verses are peaceful; there are lots of verses which advocate wars of conquest over non-believers. There are many who have studied the Koran, etc., very deeply and have written books about all this, so it is not just “cherry-puckers” who have come to these conclusions.

The main point is that Islam is divided, and one of those divisions really, really, really believes that Allah wants them to take over the world at the point of a sword, and we should watch out for them.

 

[OneSheep]

Good afternoon.
What has never been explained to me in any satisfactory way is how this is the case, and nevertheless in any nation in the Middle East where democracy is tried, the inevitable result is almost invariably an Islamist government.
From Hamas in the Palestinian Authority, to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and in countries in Northern Africa where elections are curtailed precisely to prevent Islamists taking power, the small minority rules the ballot box? Even Turkey is turning Islamist without the power of the military keeping things in check.

How can that be?
;

Hi Darryl,

I am speaking as a mostly ignorant person, but I think the draw of such government starts from the street, with the desire for Sharia law. I hear of people from places that have such law (in all its varieties) and they take pride in the fact that a wallet can be left on the street and no one will take it; have you not heard the same?

Surely, there are even parts of the U.S. where people would love to have this level of law and order, as they suffer the results of chaos.

I think that it is important to keep in mind that Islamic governments don’t generally consider themselves “Islamist”. “Islamist” is generally associated with a more fundamentalist interpretation.

This is off-topic, but I hope that helps, for what it’s worth.

 

[zz912]

It is worth noting here that the largest mosque in the Western world is in Rome.

This is intentional. We in the west ignore blatant symbolism and signs.

 

[zz912]

Notice that there actually are verses advocating violent aggression: who decides? who interprets? It’s not like those verses do not exist, and it’s not like Moslems have never lived by them.

Mohammed lived by them. So did the first followers of Mohammed.

Any claim that violent aggression is not part of Islam would have to also claim that Mohammed behaved improperly and did not ascribe to “true” Islam. Since Mohammed is the “true prophet” of Allah, such a claim is blasphemy to Islam.

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning Francis,

In fact, reading the Koran and Haddith, and seeing Mohammed’s life, which is presented as exemplary, shows that the Moslems who want to dominate the world have the stronger argument.

Well, your opinion has some support, but there are plenty of Muslim people who disagree with you. Again, would we want Muslim people who dislike Christianity and Judaism to be judging what the “stronger argument” is in Judeo-Christian teachings? We should give more voice to the Muslim people who disagree with your opinion of the “stronger argument”, right?

Look, atheists and people of other religions could find support in Christian teachings for the assertion that we believe in human depravity. Do they really have the insight to make such claims?

So why do members of Daesh think they have more of a claim on certain resources than the Yazidi do, and why do Daesh members think they have a right to Yazidi sex slaves?

Doesn’t it start by thinking that your own people are the ones favored by God, and the outgroup is worthless? The “sex slave” business is not an Islam-related issue, it only proves that some IS followers are not a people of faith and/or well-formed conscience. When people are free to hate and demonize, they do so and can consider others as property. The same is true in the case of desire for wealth, as in the U.S. I don’t think slave masters hated their slaves, but the desire for wealth maintained a level of blindness toward the intrinsic value of slaves as people. All of us are capable of blindness given the same circumstances, right?

OK, they believe they are entitled to everything so it is unjust for anyone else to have anything. I can’t figure out what your point is wrt their potential feeling of injustice.

If you have a people start with desire for another people’s land, the desiring populace can become blind to the conscience’ compulsion to avoid theft. The desiring populace looks and says things like “they don’t deserve this land, they don’t take care of it” or “these people are devil worshipers, they don’t deserve this land”; they come to see their enemies’ possession of the resource as an injustice. Historians in the populace can find that the land was once in the hands of their own in-group, so the appearance becomes that the land was stolen from them or taken in an unjust way. Like I said, we are all capable of this kind of blindness. The point is, their actions are understandable in terms of their human nature.

I am not condoning their actions, Francis, but trying to figure all this out, like you are.

Keep in mind that I am simply speaking as an observer, and not any kind of expert.

 

[Darryl1958]

Hi Darryl,

I am speaking as a mostly ignorant person, but I think the draw of such government starts from the street, with the desire for Sharia law. I hear of people from places that have such law (in all its varieties) and they take pride in the fact that a wallet can be left on the street and no one will take it; have you not heard the same?

Surely, there are even parts of the U.S. where people would love to have this level of law and order, as they suffer the results of chaos.

I think that it is important to keep in mind that Islamic governments don’t generally consider themselves “Islamist”. “Islamist” is generally associated with a more fundamentalist interpretation.

This is off-topic, but I hope that helps, for what it’s worth.

It is not really off-topic, because it is about the scope of IS, and Islamists in general.
To discredit the ideals that drive Islamists to being those of only a small minority needs to be understood in the context that Islamists often win elections from the larger majority of the Muslim population. It may be the small minority that drives a car through a crowd full of kids on the beach, or murders priests during Mass, but it is a much larger demographic that gives this small majority support in some way, up to and including electing their Islamist masters into government.

Moderate, normal people may well make up the majority of Muslims and typify the kind of Muslims we all know, but that does not change the fact that moderate Islam is disjointed, politically weak, and not well supported by either the religious documents of Islam, or the major religious schools. Moderate Muslims like Egyptian president Sisi, who call for real reforms, are not even supported by Western leaders like Barrack Obama.

We can all speculate on why this is the case, but respecting truth means respecting the facts as they stand, and the fact is that this is the case.
IS is simply not the aberration when it comes to Islam.

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning Darryl,

It is not really off-topic, because it is about the scope of IS, and Islamists in general.
To discredit the ideals that drive Islamists to being those of only a small minority needs to be understood in the context that Islamists often win elections from the larger majority of the Muslim population. It may be the small minority that drives a car through a crowd full of kids on the beach, or murders priests during Mass, but it is a much larger demographic that gives this small majority support in some way, up to and including electing their Islamist masters into government.

Well, you are talking about the actions of individuals who claim affiliation with ISIS, which is not an elected government, and extending those actions toward governments that are elected. Let’s face it, though, no government has complete control over the actions of its citizens. Do you know of an elected Islamic government that supports terrorism?

Moderate, normal people may well make up the majority of Muslims and typify the kind of Muslims we all know, but that does not change the fact that moderate Islam is disjointed, politically weak, and not well supported by either the religious documents of Islam, or the major religious schools. Moderate Muslims like Egyptian president Sisi, who call for real reforms, are not even supported by Western leaders like Barrack Obama

.

Sisi is not unpopular for being moderate, he is unpopular for human rights abuses.

We can all speculate on why this is the case, but respecting truth means respecting the facts as they stand, and the fact is that this is the case.
IS is simply not the aberration when it comes to Islam.

You are basing the “facts” on an unelected “government” of a people set on revenge and extremism. The fact is, the country in the world with the largest Muslim population, Indonesia, has had bombings attributed to IS, and there are other Muslim-dominated countries that have also suffered.

We must remember that the people who have suffered the most by the actions of IS are themselves Muslim. They, like many French citizens, feel compelled to punish IS, which continues the violence spiral.

While there is a place for punishment and protection in the short term, our ultimate focus still needs to be one of forgiveness and reconciliation. Along that line, it behooves us to give followers of Islam the benefit of the doubt.

From the CCC:

841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”

We can respect people by listening to what they say about their own religion. The vast majority of Muslims condemn IS terror, including the murder of Fr. Hamel.

oic-oci.org/oicv3/topic/?t_id=11409&ref=4480&lan=en

Excerpt:

“The OIC Secretary General, Iyad Ameen Madani, strongly condemns this heinous terrorist attack, expressing the OIC’s solidarity with the French Government. He also reiterated the OIC’s support for the international community in its efforts to root out terrorism and combat terrorist groups and those who disseminate extremist and destructive ideas threatening international peace and security.”

 

[St_Francis]

That means very little. Sure, they can justify their actions by cherry picking from their religious texts. But if you allow someone hostile to Christianity to cherry pick verses from the Bible, they could show how we could justify equally heinous acts. But we don’t do that because we do not define our Christianity by cherry picking from the scriptures. It seems only fair to afford Muslims the same understanding.

First, I only posted that link to show that the war-like verses exist–that not all the writings of Islam preach peace as we see it. IOW, the previous poster also cherry-picked his verses. . .

What is difficult to understand for non-Moslems is that there is no “true Islam.” There are many groups of Moslems and they have different ideas about what in their writings should be followed.

One of the tenets generally held is that Mohammed led an exemplary life, setting an example to be followed. To criticize his actions, aszz219 pointed out, would be to criticize their prophet, anathema.

And what did Mohammed spend the last 10 years of his life doing? Taking over the entire Arab peninsula. (See map here)

Notice that within 120 years of his death, his followers had conquered territory from Spain to India.

Yes, many Moslems today are very peaceful people, and the peaceful strain has always existed, but to deny that there is strong support in their history and writings for the violence we see today is to blind ourselves, and blindness is incapacitating. We must understand our enemy, at the same time that we acknowledge that not all Moslems are the enemy.

 

[St_Francis]

Good Morning Francis,

Please see my post above to Leafbyniggle–I had trouble including your post as I am doing this on a very small device.

Well, your opinion has some support,

Not opinion but fact. That Mohammed is considered an exemplar in Moslem life is a fact. That he warred against the entire Arab peninsula is a fact. That the war-verses exist is a fact. That a strain of Islam lives by those verses is a fact. That Islam teaches eventual world domination is a fact.

but there are plenty of Muslim people who disagree with you.

Not denying that one bit.

Again, would we want Muslim people who dislike Christianity and Judaism to be judging what the “stronger argument” is in Judeo-Christian teachings? We should give more voice to the Muslim people who disagree with ppyour opinion of the “stronger argument”, right?

The argument that Islam teaches, in several ways, conquest with the end of world domination is not a question or opinion or interpretation; it is a fact. Mohammed, the exemplar of a good Moslem, spent the last 10 years of his life taking over the Arab peninsula by force. His immediate followers *wiped out *Christianity in North Africa.

In contrast, Christ peacefully went to His death, as many of Hos followers did in the following centuries.

What I am expressing here is what I have learned in college and after, by reading what those who have studied Islam and Moslems themselves have written about this. I can’t link to the books I have read, so I link to necessarily shorter sources on the Internet.

Look, atheists and people of other religions could find support in Christian teachings for the assertion that we believe in human depravity. Do they really have the insight to make such claims?

I don’t think that’s true, unless they completely ignore the results of depraved actions, which are also detailed in the Bible.

Doesn’t it start by thinking that your own people are the ones favored by God, and the outgroup is worthless? The “sex slave” business is not an Islam-related issue, it only proves that some IS followers are not a people of faith and/or well-formed conscience. When people are free to hate and demonize, they do so and can consider others as property. The same is true in the case of desire for wealth, as in the U.S. I don’t think slave masters hated their slaves, but the desire for wealth maintained a level of blindness toward the intrinsic value of slaves as people. All of us are capable of blindness given the same circumstances, right?

Sure, but how many of us are going out and beheading people and keeping sex slaves, with legitimate justification from our religion? Do you honestly think that we should let these evil-doers slide because, hey, we all have our blind spots?

If you have a people start with desire for another people’s land, the desiring populace can become blind to the conscience’ compulsion to avoid theft. The desiring populace looks and says things like “they don’t deserve this land, they don’t take care of it” or “these people are devil worshipers, they don’t deserve this land”; they come to see their enemies’ possession of the resource as an injustice. Historians in the populace can find that the land was once in the hands of their own in-group, so the appearance becomes that the land was stolen from them or taken in an unjust way. Like I said, we are all capable of this kind of blindness. The point is, their actions are understandable in terms of their human nature.

I am not condoning their actions, Francis, but trying to figure all this out, like you are.

Keep in mind that I am simply speaking as an observer, and not any kind of expert.

As am I. I find it difficult to understand why you keep pointing out the same things: I feel as if you are with someone who is deciding which shoes to wear and you keep bringing up socks, which he already has on.

 

[Tomdstone]

There are many schools of thought in Islamm; it is not monolithic.

I think that they all deny the Trinity and teach “pure monotheism.”

 

[OneSheep]

Hello Francis,

Not opinion but fact. That Mohammed is considered an exemplar in Moslem life is a fact. That he warred against the entire Arab peninsula is a fact. That the war-verses exist is a fact. That a strain of Islam lives by those verses is a fact. That Islam teaches eventual world domination is a fact.

The argument that Islam teaches, in several ways, conquest with the end of world domination is not a question or opinion or interpretation; it is a fact. Mohammed, the exemplar of a good Moslem, spent the last 10 years of his life taking over the Arab peninsula by force. His immediate followers *wiped out *Christianity in North Africa.

Yes, it was taught, but modern Muslims scholars generally believe that the words had a limited application. Just as the in the OT, tribes were given “permission” to brutally invade a land and take it, early Muslim people had the same calling. Most Muslim people today do not believe this is ethical or called for in the modern world. Most Muslim people, Francis, just as most Christians, are not literal fundamentalists.

In contrast, Christ peacefully went to His death, as many of Hos followers did in the following centuries.

Peacefully? Well, let’s say that He did not fight back. Hey, one thing we have to be grateful for is that Muslim people have some regard for both Jesus and the Blessed Mother. So you see, there is a lot of ground to cover for mutual values.

What I am expressing here is what I have learned in college and after, by reading what those who have studied Islam and Moslems themselves have written about this. I can’t link to the books I have read, so I link to necessarily shorter sources on the Internet.

Did you see the link I sent to Darryl about the statements made by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation? It is an organization that is meant to provide a unified Muslim response. Please remember that there is plenty out there meant to defame Islam, but there is another side of the story. Would you rather not hear the other side of the story? It is understandable if you don’t; we all get set in our own opinions.

I don’t think that’s true, unless they completely ignore the results of depraved actions, which are also detailed in the Bible.

Oops? Are you saying that you agree that the human is depraved?

Sure, but how many of us are going out and beheading people and keeping sex slaves, with legitimate justification from our religion? Do you honestly think that we should let these evil-doers slide because, hey, we all have our blind spots?

Most Muslims would disagree with “legitimate justification”. There are plenty of strong words in the Gospel that can also be taken out of context. I am gathering that you want the Quran to be interpreted in this day to emphasize violence against others, even though most Muslims disagree with your reading of the Quran. Why, Francis? Aren’t we Catholics supposed to be building bridges instead of walls?

We are not called to let evildoers “slide”, nor did I suggest it.

As am I. I find it difficult to understand why you keep pointing out the same things: I feel as if you are with someone who is deciding which shoes to wear and you keep bringing up socks, which he already has on.

If I am pointing out the same things, it is because of my very short memory, and I apologize. I’m not sure what you mean about the “socks” thing.

What is your vision as to an answer to the terrorism problem today, Francis? I mean long-term. In the short term, we must stop the Daesh from expanding and terrorizing others with the least amount of violence possible. However, we all know that such quashing will inspire a new set of radicals (and drive underground many) unless the aftermath is handled in a different way.

I am thinking that the Gospel truly provides the means toward a lasting answer. Criticism of Islam is a non-starter, especially criticism that gives no credence to those within the religion who are truly taking steps to help the religion’s teachings evolve. We are called to do unto others as we would have them do unto us, and we certainly want the Muslim people to know that most of us are more inclined toward the Catholic understanding of Christ and God than other more fundamentalist versions, correct? To me, a lasting answer involves giving people the benefit of the doubt, which is encouraged in our Church, correct?

The lasting answer is the Kingdom. What does the Kingdom look like to you? What role does forgiveness play in the Kingdom, and how do we encourage it?

Thanks for your response!

God Bless.

 

[Tomdstone]

What is your vision as to an answer to the terrorism problem today, Francis?..

For one thing, I don’t think it is acceptable for France to ban Muslim women from wearing headcovering in school or in some public places. IMHO, women, whether Muslim or not, should be able to wear whatever they want on their heads.

 

[deuterium2h]

Yes, many Moslems today are very peaceful people, and the peaceful strain has always existed, but to deny that there is strong support in their history and writings for the violence we see today is to blind ourselves, and blindness is incapacitating. We must understand our enemy, at the same time that we acknowledge that not all Moslems are the enemy.

The problem, IMHO, is that the violent, jihadi elements of Islam represent more than just a “strain” of Muslims. When you use the term “strain”, it almost implies a very small, unrepresentative, anomalous sub-set. While it is true that the full-blown, active Wahhabist segment may represent a smaller (but not insignificant) percentage of practicing Sunni’s…there clearly is a significant percentage of Muslims who have sympathies for their radical, ultra-conservative agenda. The mosques and madrassas of Saudi Arabia, Iran , Pakistan, Qatar, etc., aren’t teaching about love, tolerance and peaceful co-existence.

 

[St_Francis]

Hello Francis,
Yes, it was taught, but modern Muslims scholars generally believe that the words had a limited application. Just as the in the OT, tribes were given “permission” to brutally invade a land and take it, early Muslim people had the same calling.

Whatever “most Moslems” believe today, there were originally no limitations as there were in the Bible: the goal was that Islam would dominate the entire world: this was the will of Allah.

Most Muslim people today do not believe this is ethical or called for in the modern world. Most Muslim people, Francis, just as most Christians, are not literal fundamentalists.

This is true, as I have said more than once, and if all Moslems thought in the same way, there would be no problem, would there? The problem is that some Moslems *do * think that way, the warlike way, and they are out there trying to conquer the world for Allah.

Peacefully? Well, let’s say that He did not fight back.

??? What do you mean? In what way did Christ not submit peacefully? When Peter used his sword in non-peaceful defense of Christ, He told him to put the sword back. Christ could have called upon legions of angels to protect Him, and He did not. I do not see how you can question and minimize the peacefulness of His response.

Hey, one thing we have to be grateful for is that Muslim people have some regard for both Jesus and the Blessed Mother. So you see, there is a lot of ground to cover for mutual values.

OK, so if some jihadi is cutting off my head, I should be grateful that he has some regard for Christ and His Mother?

Did you see the link I sent to Darryl about the statements made by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation? It is an organization that is meant to provide a unified Muslim response. Please remember that there is plenty out there meant to defame Islam, but there is another side of the story. Would you rather not hear the other side of the story? It is understandable if you don’t; we all get set in our own opinions.

I am fine with the other side of the story, but as I mentioned above, that is not where the problem lies. The Moslems who run the gas station down the road from me, the Moslems I went to school with, etc., I have no problem with.

Oops? Are you saying that you agree that the human is depraved?

I wrote, “I don’t think that’s true, unless they completely ignore the results of depraved actions, which are also detailed in the Bible,” in response to your comment that atheists and others could use parts of the Bible to support a contention that we believe in depravity (or that we believe depravity is good). So I am not sure how you got that I was writing that the human is depraved out of my comment.

Most Muslims would disagree with “legitimate justification”. There are plenty of strong words in the Gospel that can also be taken out of context. I am gathering that you want the Quran to be interpreted in this day to emphasize violence against others, even though most Muslims disagree with your reading of the Quran. Why, Francis? Aren’t we Catholics supposed to be building bridges instead of walls?

I think we have hit upon the crux of the problem.

Most Moslems in the world are peaceful and do not agree with the terrorists and radical jihadists, I agree. However, we would like to see the few among them to stop engaging in these acts of violence, right?

Now, when undertaking some form of ecumenical dialogue, it is said to be wise to learn the point of view of the other side, no? And when building a physical bridge, it is a good idea to see how the land is on the other side when designing the bridge, no?

In the same way, in order to deal with ISIS and other groups like it, we must understand where they are coming from, no?

For example, bin Laden and others have written about the need to reclaim formerly Islamic lands, like Spain (al-Andalus). I am unable to find the original source of bin Laden’s quote online anymore, but I have seen it in its entirety, and there are other similar quotes at the link (unfortunately sourced only back to the secondary source, but there is a lot of info online about the desire to reclaim lost lands). It is a wide-spread idea among a certain group of Moslems that they have a duty to reclaim those lost lands.

Imagine if I were to have a series of dialogs with a Jack Chick tract writer about Christianity, and I totally ignored his belief in the OSAS doctrine. Half our conversation wouldn’t even make sense, and I would have no idea how to handle the discussion!

How to defeat the radical jihadists will be found in what *they *believe, not in what peaceful Moslems believe. Since the source of what the radical jihadists believe is to be found in Islam, we must look there; we cannot say, well, most Moslems no longer believe this, so let’s ignore that Islam ever had anything to do with this. We need to look thoroughly at the warlike, conquering aspect of Islam, no matter how much it is no longer in force among the vast majority of Moslems who are peaceful.

**Continued below **

 

[St_Francis]

**Continued from above **

We are not called to let evildoers “slide”, nor did I suggest it.

I am confused by your long discussion about how all people sin and comments like “All of us are capable of blindness given the same circumstances, right?”

If I am pointing out the same things, it is because of my very short memory, and I apologize. I’m not sure what you mean about the “socks” thing.

Well, you and others seem to focus exclusively on forgiveness and mercy for the terrorists and continual reminders that most Moslems are peaceful.

Yeah, yeah, we *get *that.

The emphasis on the peaceful Moslems seems to push out any attention to the non-peaceful Moslems who are beheading people and selling their daughters as sex slaves, which is the primary reason for the discussions. It’s as if I were very worried about handling a cancer diagnosis and my friend kept saying, yes, but you should be grateful that your teeth are good!

What is your vision as to an answer to the terrorism problem today, Francis? I mean long-term.

I do not think I am knowledgeable enough to come up with an answer to the terrorism problem today; I do know that there are others who are much more knowledgeable who may be able to work with experts in other fields, such as psychology and military, to come up with solutions.

In the short term, we must stop the Daesh from expanding and terrorizing others with the least amount of violence possible. However, we all know that such quashing will inspire a new set of radicals (and drive underground many) unless the aftermath is handled in a different way.

I do have several problems with how the solutions are handled in the general press, sourced from government agencies, so not just general opinion but from official sources. I have a problem with the idea that if we do anything “negative,” it will just move more people into the Daesh camp. Well, I can’t say that doing only positive things has kept people from making that move! In fact, they seem emboldened by our reluctance to do anything. So that is one area in which I think we need to understand the enemy better.

I am thinking that the Gospel truly provides the means toward a lasting answer.

Criticism of Islam is a non-starter, especially criticism that gives no credence to those within the religion who are truly taking steps to help the religion’s teachings evolve.

Most of the people who really study Islam understand its multi-faceted nature and do give credence to those Moslems whom you mention. The problem seems to be a perception that saying anything negative about Islam is refusing to give credence to them.

It’s like the girl I knew who said that if I didn’t want to vote for Obama I was racist, when the reason I didn’t want to vote for him was that he is such a total abortion advocate.

We are called to do unto others as we would have them do unto us, and we certainly want the Muslim people to know that most of us are more inclined toward the Catholic understanding of Christ and God than other more fundamentalist versions, correct? To me, a lasting answer involves giving people the benefit of the doubt, which is encouraged in our Church, correct?

It’s hard to give the benefit of the doubt to someone who is trying to kill you.

The lasting answer is the Kingdom. What does the Kingdom look like to you? What role does forgiveness play in the Kingdom, and how do we encourage it?

To me, the Kingdom of God includes St Michael chasing Satan out of Heaven, knights protecting the helpless from evil-doers, missionaries risking their lives to actually talk to people about the Gospel, Pope Pius V urging everyone to pray the Rosary for a victory over the Ottoman Navy, cloisters full of religious praying for conversions all over the world. . .

The families of Martin Richard, Lu Lingzi, and Krystle Campbell, as well as all the other victims of the Tsarnaev brothers who committed the bombing need to forgive, so that they can heal.

But where is there room for forgiveness on *my *part? How and who am I supposed to forgive? They have not done anything to me. I pray for their victims, and I pray for their conversion: I am not sure what you are advocating.

Thanks for your response!

I really appreciate your discussing all this with me as you seem to have a good grasp on a point of view that I have been unable to understand. I am beginning to think that we are not as far apart as we seem, just at different angles.

God Bless.

May God bless you, too!

 

[St_Francis]

The problem, IMHO, is that the violent, jihadi elements of Islam represent more than just a “strain” of Muslims. When you use the term “strain”, it almost implies a very small, unrepresentative, anomalous sub-set. While it is true that the full-blown, active Wahhabist segment may represent a smaller (but not insignificant) percentage of practicing Sunni’s…there clearly is a significant percentage of Muslims who have sympathies for their radical, ultra-conservative agenda. The mosques and madrassas of Saudi Arabia, Iran , Pakistan, Qatar, etc., aren’t teaching about love, tolerance and peaceful co-existence.

Well, I didn’t think my using the word strain had that implication, but that’s ok. It’s just one of the hazards of using the internet, esp quickly. Also, I used the word strain in relation to the peaceful Moslems. . .