First, it is a much worse violation from *our *point of view to do what the one “artist” did than to do some analogous thing to Moses or Mohammed.
It’s all disrespectful.
Second, then fine, they can avoid doing it; they can avoid looking at those images. Rioting around the world and death threats was an extreme overreaction *intended to intimidate *us into following their rules, like the frog in the water thing.
The rioting started by people sending it around the world. There are fundamentalists all over, but they are a small minority.
But I am talking about something completely different, which is our discussion of the theological writings, rulings, history, and aspects of Islam on which the RIs rely, for the purposes of better understanding them, their aims, and the best way to counter and stop them.
Yes, and the first understanding we must have is “why does this group
want to interpret the Quran this way?” People interpret to suit their own needs. This is behind what Pope Francis said about Islam. We are talking about people struggling with economic and political issues trying to gain recruits by saying it is a religious war.
From the article you linked for Josie:
ISIS reflects an extremist interpretation of Islam that Muslims worldwide have declared illegitimate due to ISIS’ atrocious acts of violence toward others.
Now, imagine a Christian trying to say that an interpretation of the Bible could include the idea that the Trinity was Joseph, Mary, and Christ. No one would say this is an extremist interpretation; they would say, that’s ridiculous; nothing in the Bible could be interpreted in that way, right?
Well, it “could” be, if there was someone who has an underlying purpose to changing the meaning of the Trinity. We both know that the word “trinity” does not appear in the Bible, so someone could justify an unusual use. Keep in mind that people have rationalized violent and inhumane acts based on Bible verses.
My point exactly, obviously not directed to you personally, but to those in charge of action/inaction.
Okay, but there was a huge effort to find the kidnapped and attack Boko Haram.
Yes, that’s why I mentioned *righteous *anger. Now you seem to assume that the righteousness of any righteous anger against RIs must be nullified by lack of mercy.
Oops! If that were the case, it was a miscommunication on my part. There is definitely a place for righteous anger, and all acts we take must keep mercy in mind. Mercy and righteous anger do not cancel each other. I think we can agree that righteous anger must be guided by mercy.
Again, I am not denying peaceful interpretations exist or are believed by up to the vast majority of Moslems. But the Moslems who concern us are the violent, radical Islamists; what I advocate is, that to understand them better, to deal with them better, we must look into what *they *believe, and not simply project what we would be thinking onto them.
I am not talking about where I should start, I am talking about where the RIs do start.
I see what you are saying, and I am adding that it is very important to understand the motives they have for having certain beliefs. Their motive does not begin with “God is merciful” and their attempts to show His mercy to the world. Their beliefs are coming from a different motive, and this is what Pope Francis is talking about. If we want to get to the root of the problem, it is not in the book. It is in the motives. IMO, if they had no book, they would still be doing what they are doing.
The RIs “start” with their own anger at injustice, their own desire for autonomy and economic justice. They are starting their terror with the people (and nations) they thought treated them unjustly, mainly in Iraq and Syria.
Your own faith does not evolve!
Actually, it does. We have to encounter heresies in order to determine orthodoxy. Our doctrine concerning slavery, the death penalty, the sanctity of the human body, the use of indulgences, the ability of priests to marry, the restrictions on the use of contraceptives, lots of little changes slowly happening over the years. We don’t have to use the word “evolve”, but slight changes occur over time as revelation unfolds.
No, they are not. They are simply using a different set of commentators and following the example of Mohammed. That is what gives them legitimacy in the eyes of some Moslems.
muhammadfactcheck.org/?muhammad=prophet-muhammad-taught-terrorism-and-jihad-to-conquer-the-world-for-islam
excerpt:
“In short, Prophet Muhammad forbade all forms of terrorism, and instead taught his followers to engage in the personal reflection for self-improvement. That was, is, and always will be the greatest Jihad.”
Francis, I know you are saying that this is a radical minority, but when you say they are “following the example of Mohammed” you are giving legitimacy to that minority, not the majority.
There is absolutely nothing I can say that says it as well as a Muslim person can say it for his own religion. I know some Muslim people, and they are honest and wonderful people, in our area working with Jews, Christians, and others feeding the hungry and doing
social justice work. I know others not involved with such work, but are still greatly disturbed every time a person who claims to be Muslim is involved in terror. These are people who work and have families and want everyone to get along, the same wants you and I have.
Do you know any Muslims? If so, would you tell them that the terrorists or “IS” are following Mohamed’s example? You have more respect than that.
