M
- Status
D
dzheremi
Guest
men0wjv: It may please you to know that after reading your latest reply to me, I took a walk. I went to the local deli, had a lovely conversation with an old friend of the family, and listened to some Coptic hymns and reflected on their meanings. If I was angry before, I am not now. And I will admit that Islamic government does make me angry. I do not believe that this is unjustifiable or unreasonable anger, but perhaps that is beside the point. It is anger just the same. Another of the sayings of the Desert Fathers reorients me to what is important to remember in such situations:
With that out of the way, perhaps I can engage you on another level. Have you ever seen the movie Control Room? It is Jehane Noujaimâs documentary of Al-Jazeera television station and its coverage of the lead up and beginning of the most recent U.S.-Iraq war. In it, there is a scene where producer Hassan Ibrahim is talking with a friend and co-worker about the unreasonableness of the American position regarding A-Jâs showing casualties on their channel. His analysis is pointed, and expresses what I would likewise say to you and any Muslim in the face of your stance on Islamic government. Here is a link to the scene as it appears in the film (warning: graphic content), and below is a transcript and analysis of what I feel is the relevant part of the conversation:
As to your other objections regarding my apparent stubborn resistance to following the rules of conversation as you have laid them down, I am guilty. I still refuse to engage the political dimension of Christian leadership, as my entire point is that there is no necessary analogue to Islamic governance within Christianity. This is why I gave you a quote from a fourth century Egyptian saint and not a Catholic monarch or Orthodox emperor. That you do not recognize the authority of the saint is not surprising, but it does impede the future of this discussion. As I have been trying to illustrate to you since my first post in this thread, interfaith dialogue is more or less impossible if one is not prepared to take the otherâs position as valid within their own tradition (not necessarily yours). Perhaps it would benefit you to watch this lecture given on the saints by our wonderful guest Fr. Kyrillos of the Coptic Orthodox Church. It is titled âThe Incarnation of the Beatitudes: The âSaintâ as a Model of Orthodox Lifeâ, and should go a long way towards explaining my attitude regarding this particular sticking point in our conversation. Once you know the saints as we see them, perhaps then you will see why I prefer a hermit to a king.
I have already written more than intended, and do not want you to feel as though it is simply my intent to bombard you with as much text as possible. The reason why previous replies have taken up multiple posts is not out of the anger I have been accused of, but actually because I wanted you to know that I was not discarding any of your argument. I felt I owed you nothing less, as you have been considerate with me in the past, but to the extent that I get the feeling that both of us have been talking past one another for quite some time now I have certainly reached the place of diminishing returns. I will end now wishing nothing but perfect peace to you and your community. We will never see eye to eye on many things, but I bare no hatred or anger towards you or any Muslim, only the compassion and love befitting a fellow brother in humanity.
So too I must strive, even in the face of what I see as evil.
With that out of the way, perhaps I can engage you on another level. Have you ever seen the movie Control Room? It is Jehane Noujaimâs documentary of Al-Jazeera television station and its coverage of the lead up and beginning of the most recent U.S.-Iraq war. In it, there is a scene where producer Hassan Ibrahim is talking with a friend and co-worker about the unreasonableness of the American position regarding A-Jâs showing casualties on their channel. His analysis is pointed, and expresses what I would likewise say to you and any Muslim in the face of your stance on Islamic government. Here is a link to the scene as it appears in the film (warning: graphic content), and below is a transcript and analysis of what I feel is the relevant part of the conversation:
So I say to you: Islamic governance, regardless of its sanctity to you, is and forever will be objectionable to me. Do not, therefore, be surprised at my strenuous objection to it, regardless of your contention that I am worrying over nothing because no Islamic state currently exists. There are plenty of historical examples wherein Christians came under Islamic governance that I may draw upon, should you wish to continue down this road. You may defend Islamic government as you see fit, and I likewise would never expect you to agree to any changing or softening of the Qurâan and its precepts, but at the same time - do not ask us to love it as well. Do not ask us to âgo read a few booksâ about it, as though we cannot recognize what our own history tells us and instead should rely on yours. I am doing for my community no less than what you would do for yours, were the tables turned. In fact, as I have seen a different poster argue before on these boards, I should like to think that if some of the more flagrantly objectionable passages in the Qurâan were edited to change their focus from non-Muslims to Muslims then not a single Muslim would be playing apologist for them.
Does this still sound like the word of the Almighty God to you? Am I right to chastise you and tell you that you are being unreasonable should you become upset at what I have written here? I should expect you to object to it, and would become worried if you did not.
As to your other objections regarding my apparent stubborn resistance to following the rules of conversation as you have laid them down, I am guilty. I still refuse to engage the political dimension of Christian leadership, as my entire point is that there is no necessary analogue to Islamic governance within Christianity. This is why I gave you a quote from a fourth century Egyptian saint and not a Catholic monarch or Orthodox emperor. That you do not recognize the authority of the saint is not surprising, but it does impede the future of this discussion. As I have been trying to illustrate to you since my first post in this thread, interfaith dialogue is more or less impossible if one is not prepared to take the otherâs position as valid within their own tradition (not necessarily yours). Perhaps it would benefit you to watch this lecture given on the saints by our wonderful guest Fr. Kyrillos of the Coptic Orthodox Church. It is titled âThe Incarnation of the Beatitudes: The âSaintâ as a Model of Orthodox Lifeâ, and should go a long way towards explaining my attitude regarding this particular sticking point in our conversation. Once you know the saints as we see them, perhaps then you will see why I prefer a hermit to a king.
I have already written more than intended, and do not want you to feel as though it is simply my intent to bombard you with as much text as possible. The reason why previous replies have taken up multiple posts is not out of the anger I have been accused of, but actually because I wanted you to know that I was not discarding any of your argument. I felt I owed you nothing less, as you have been considerate with me in the past, but to the extent that I get the feeling that both of us have been talking past one another for quite some time now I have certainly reached the place of diminishing returns. I will end now wishing nothing but perfect peace to you and your community. We will never see eye to eye on many things, but I bare no hatred or anger towards you or any Muslim, only the compassion and love befitting a fellow brother in humanity.
C
Cinette
Guest
*This prayer request was just passed on to me and I thought I would post it on the thread so that everybody can join in and pray for these poor Chaldean Catholics of Iraq:
âI need help. I am Chaldean. We are Catholics from IRAQ who are persecuted for our faithâ. As you may have heard, the Muslim extremists bombed a Church in Baghdad, killing 2 priests and 58 believers.
âIs there anyway we can set up a rosary rally for Chaldeans? So all can join in? We need help. Please, I am begging you. I am begging you.â
*
**]
âI need help. I am Chaldean. We are Catholics from IRAQ who are persecuted for our faithâ. As you may have heard, the Muslim extremists bombed a Church in Baghdad, killing 2 priests and 58 believers.
âIs there anyway we can set up a rosary rally for Chaldeans? So all can join in? We need help. Please, I am begging you. I am begging you.â
*
**]
M
men0wjv
Guest
M
men0wjv
Guest
dzheremi: 
Yes we will not see eye to eye on certain matters, but I do not see a problem in this. The problem lies in when we disagree over something that is not actually true. For example, many Christians do not like the idea of Papal infallibility and yet they do not understand it!?! What they donât like is the idea that the Pope is never wrong, since he has quite clearly been wrong. However, if they were to understand the actual doctrine to include all the subtleties of âex Cathedra,â âfaith and morals,â and the fact that he rarely makes a decision by himself (since he is actually a servant despite all his authority) they may agree. They may still disagree, but at least it would be about the actual thing rather than a perceived thing which does not exist. This is really my point; we can disagree over the rights and wrongs of actual Islamic governance, but not a synthetic re-hash of Islamic governance. Once one has amassed all the facts, it is then that one passes judgment, not before (or at least one realise the limitations of oneâs judgment and thus be open to change) because to not do this (i.e. judge before one knows the facts) is prejudice (lit pre-judgment).
Pointing to single examples of something is not really of any benefit. If I say ginger haired people are angry and give some examples, you then disagree and point to some counter examples and then we are none the wiser are we? Should we relate the incidence of anger of ginger haired people with non ginger haired people then weâll see a trend, and probably weâll find that there is no correlation between hair colour and anger, thus rendering an argument on the subject pointless. It is the same if we talk about example of âIslamic governmentsâ in history; you can point out bad examples and I can point out good examples, for ultimately no benefit. Should we look in a much broader way, at every Islamic and non Islamic government, then we may see a correlation, we may not??? To be honest from this approach to the discussion I donât know the answer and I think it would be incredibly hard to prove something either way. This is why I refer to the Islamic model as written in the classical works only because it is here and here only where a discussion that may bear fruit would take place, mainly because their is a chance at coming to an answer.
You make mention on the verse (sticking to Oxford): âFight those of the People of the Book who do not [truly] believe in God and the Last Day, who do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden, who do not obey the rule of justice, until they pay the tax and agree to submitâ [9:29]. Given that you may understand this verse to mean legitamising of indiscriminate killing of the People of the Book (i.e. Christians and Jews and the like) then I see how you are angry. There may be Muslim oppressors who use this verse to justify their evil agendas. However, should we refer to the understanding of âthe Muslimsâ then we will see that the perceived thing is not the actual thing. Knowing how âthe Muslimsâ understand this verse is important since, were they to get into power then their understanding of it is what theyâd implement, not anotherâs. As such Iâll write what my teachers taught me, not in a sugar coated way, but simply as was.
The Muslim State sent a messenger to the Byzantines, with the aim of asking them to Islam. The Byzantines killed the messenger. The Muslims sent an army and although thwarted, seriously unnerved the Byzantines who at that point were the Worldâs biggest superpower. The Byzantines were nervous by the strength of Islam and thus sent an army. A counter army was sent by the Muslims and they met at Tabuk. The Muslims were nervous to fight the Byzantines because they were people of God (i.e. Christians) at this point this verse was revealed. It was a reassurance that even though they be Christian they may be fought because whilst they intend the Divine in their worship etc in reality it is not what they worship, hence of the use by Haleem (the translator) of the word truly. The verse legitimises fighting them until they desist or surrender. Should the day be of the Muslims and they win the Byzantinesâ (i.e. Christianâs) lands then they should leave them as a Vassal state providing they pay the tax and in so doing agree to submit to the Muslim rule, a true polytheist would be expelled. The verse is specific, but remains in the Qurâan should a similar situation present itself, i.e. an invading Christian force. It cannot mean fight any People of the Book under Muslim protection since this is impermissible (as stated) by virtue of the tax. It cannot mean fight People of the Book indiscriminately outside of the Muslims protection because it goes against the whole ethos of Islamic thought, to name but one verse: âBut if they incline towards peace, you must also incline towards it, and put your trust in God: He is the All Hearing, the All Knowingâ [8:61]. There is a lot more that could be said, but that is an overview.
I did want to just add - without wishing to waffle on any longer - that I appreciate there is not a similar system of Christian governance articulated, but there are analogies that could be discussed. For example since Catholicism (and other denominations?) believe in hierarchy (as Islam does) then the concept of a democracy is somewhat problematic. It is not a terrible form of government, but it is problematic. Though we may disagree, I think we can see sense in the bastion of Democracyâs words: Winston Churchill; âDemocracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried.â
Peace my friend
PS: I understand the concept of a saint; we have them too - its just Salafis that donât
Yes we will not see eye to eye on certain matters, but I do not see a problem in this. The problem lies in when we disagree over something that is not actually true. For example, many Christians do not like the idea of Papal infallibility and yet they do not understand it!?! What they donât like is the idea that the Pope is never wrong, since he has quite clearly been wrong. However, if they were to understand the actual doctrine to include all the subtleties of âex Cathedra,â âfaith and morals,â and the fact that he rarely makes a decision by himself (since he is actually a servant despite all his authority) they may agree. They may still disagree, but at least it would be about the actual thing rather than a perceived thing which does not exist. This is really my point; we can disagree over the rights and wrongs of actual Islamic governance, but not a synthetic re-hash of Islamic governance. Once one has amassed all the facts, it is then that one passes judgment, not before (or at least one realise the limitations of oneâs judgment and thus be open to change) because to not do this (i.e. judge before one knows the facts) is prejudice (lit pre-judgment).
Pointing to single examples of something is not really of any benefit. If I say ginger haired people are angry and give some examples, you then disagree and point to some counter examples and then we are none the wiser are we? Should we relate the incidence of anger of ginger haired people with non ginger haired people then weâll see a trend, and probably weâll find that there is no correlation between hair colour and anger, thus rendering an argument on the subject pointless. It is the same if we talk about example of âIslamic governmentsâ in history; you can point out bad examples and I can point out good examples, for ultimately no benefit. Should we look in a much broader way, at every Islamic and non Islamic government, then we may see a correlation, we may not??? To be honest from this approach to the discussion I donât know the answer and I think it would be incredibly hard to prove something either way. This is why I refer to the Islamic model as written in the classical works only because it is here and here only where a discussion that may bear fruit would take place, mainly because their is a chance at coming to an answer.
You make mention on the verse (sticking to Oxford): âFight those of the People of the Book who do not [truly] believe in God and the Last Day, who do not forbid what God and His Messenger have forbidden, who do not obey the rule of justice, until they pay the tax and agree to submitâ [9:29]. Given that you may understand this verse to mean legitamising of indiscriminate killing of the People of the Book (i.e. Christians and Jews and the like) then I see how you are angry. There may be Muslim oppressors who use this verse to justify their evil agendas. However, should we refer to the understanding of âthe Muslimsâ then we will see that the perceived thing is not the actual thing. Knowing how âthe Muslimsâ understand this verse is important since, were they to get into power then their understanding of it is what theyâd implement, not anotherâs. As such Iâll write what my teachers taught me, not in a sugar coated way, but simply as was.
The Muslim State sent a messenger to the Byzantines, with the aim of asking them to Islam. The Byzantines killed the messenger. The Muslims sent an army and although thwarted, seriously unnerved the Byzantines who at that point were the Worldâs biggest superpower. The Byzantines were nervous by the strength of Islam and thus sent an army. A counter army was sent by the Muslims and they met at Tabuk. The Muslims were nervous to fight the Byzantines because they were people of God (i.e. Christians) at this point this verse was revealed. It was a reassurance that even though they be Christian they may be fought because whilst they intend the Divine in their worship etc in reality it is not what they worship, hence of the use by Haleem (the translator) of the word truly. The verse legitimises fighting them until they desist or surrender. Should the day be of the Muslims and they win the Byzantinesâ (i.e. Christianâs) lands then they should leave them as a Vassal state providing they pay the tax and in so doing agree to submit to the Muslim rule, a true polytheist would be expelled. The verse is specific, but remains in the Qurâan should a similar situation present itself, i.e. an invading Christian force. It cannot mean fight any People of the Book under Muslim protection since this is impermissible (as stated) by virtue of the tax. It cannot mean fight People of the Book indiscriminately outside of the Muslims protection because it goes against the whole ethos of Islamic thought, to name but one verse: âBut if they incline towards peace, you must also incline towards it, and put your trust in God: He is the All Hearing, the All Knowingâ [8:61]. There is a lot more that could be said, but that is an overview.
I did want to just add - without wishing to waffle on any longer - that I appreciate there is not a similar system of Christian governance articulated, but there are analogies that could be discussed. For example since Catholicism (and other denominations?) believe in hierarchy (as Islam does) then the concept of a democracy is somewhat problematic. It is not a terrible form of government, but it is problematic. Though we may disagree, I think we can see sense in the bastion of Democracyâs words: Winston Churchill; âDemocracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried.â
Peace my friend
PS: I understand the concept of a saint; we have them too - its just Salafis that donât
D
dzheremi
Guest
Hahaha. Hopefully you see the irony of the statement you made. In essence, âItâs fine if we disagree; youâre just wrong, is all.â Well, I say that you have your âtruthâ and I have mine, and not surprisingly, I prefer mine!dzheremi:
Yes we will not see eye to eye on certain matters, but I do not see a problem in this. The problem lies in when we disagree over something that is not actually true.
This has no bearing on anything we are talking about. No amount of further âunderstandingâ of Islamic principles will make Christians who have studied Islam with a critical eye and knowledge of their own faith comfortable with what they learn about Islam.
I am personally insulted by your repeated attempts to insinuate that I am making something out of nothing. Is 9:29 in the Qurâan or is it not? Is there a problem with the translation I have used? I got it from the University of Southern California Center for Muslim-Jewish Engagement, which offers the three most widely-accepted English translations of the Qurâan in searchable form.
Enough. Khalas. This whole âyouâre being prejudicedâ, âyou donât know what real Islamic government isâ, etc. style of argument is really tiresome. If you are so sure that I have no idea what I am talking about, then provide me with where I might find âall the factsâ and I will analyze them and return to the discussion. As it is, I have studied the history of past Muslim-Christian engagement to a far greater degree than you apparently realize, and will not stand for any more of these kinds of unhelpful comments from you.
As I stated previously, I have many examples of past mistreatment of Christians on the part of Muslims acting in complete harmony with one or another interpretation of Islamic law, should you wish to go down this road. Again, merely telling me that my argument is faulty and providing no reason for it beyond weak analogies to ginger-haired people is unhelpful. Clearly you find my argument lacking, yet you seem unable or unwilling to say why other than that I have not presented enough examples. Well, how much time do you have? I can dig up the bibliography I had to make during my undergraduate research on the Assyrians. which included numerous readings on their mistreatment at the hands of Islamic governments and individual groups working at the behest of Muslim states and empires to apply Islamically-mandated laws at the local level (e.g., the jizya). The same mistreatment has fallen upon the Maronites, Copts, and other native Middle Eastern Christians in every single instance in which they have come into contact with a regime dedicated to asserting Islam as the law of the land, whether through officially declaring their country an Islamic republic (in the case of Iran) or working at a more localized level to crush those pesky Christians (often also ethno-cultural minorities, i.e. Armenians and Greeks) after being reminded of their Islamic duty to put down âmischief in the landâ. While I know correlation does not imply causation (necessarily!), any good scientist must see reason to investigate more closely the stronger that correlation becomes. When it comes to Islam and the oppression of religious minorities, the correlation is very strong, given the historical record of co-occurrence.
D
dzheremi
Guest
What? Please quote where I wrote that the verse legitimizes the indiscriminate killing of Christians and Jews, or anyone for that matter! Or anything like that! I am shocked. Very poor method of argument here where you put words in my mouth and then proceed dismantle and argument only you are making.
I see you missed entirely my point in bringing the verse up, which was that were the tables turned and the instructions in the verse applied to you and your people rather than to me and mine, you would likely (rightly) be disgusted by it and protest. Nothing about killing anybody.I see you are still trying to have this discussion with a Catholic. I hope youâll find one who will have this conversation with you, because I am not that person.
For the last time, at no point in any post in this thread did I ever set up Islamic government against any other type of government. So there is nothing to respond to here that wouldnât draw me into an argument I am committed to not having.
I am, frankly, disappointed in you. I do not mean this in a school-marmish âlook whoâs being a naughty boyâ sort of way. I just thought that a relatively intelligent person such as yourself who has presented himself as open-minded and seeking some kind of rapprochement with Christians might actually give thought to the substance of their arguments, particularly as you say you are committed to understanding Christianity as Christians understand it. As I have stated before, I feel this is an impossible dream, and our subsequent conversation has done nothing but confirm that for me. Lest you think I am merely picking on you and trying to tear you down, I am also disappointed in myself, in fact to a much greater and more painful degree, as I am sure that I could have argued more effectively in many ways on behalf of the truth of my religion, and fed my passions in the most shameful of ways by acquiescing to anger. God forgive me. I do not believe that either of us have intentionally misled or harmed the other (I can say I honestly did not and do not want to). Nevertheless, I am done with this conversation and any future contact with you, as I see that there is little that would satisfy you in your quest for dialogue save my appeasement to Islam, which I cannot ever give you. I will return to prayer, because it is only when I argue with God that I can be comforted in the knowledge that He knows what I am trying to say.
Peace.
C
Cinette
Guest
*I have just received this. Hope you will all read and digest it:
*A German View of Islam
This is by far the best explanation of the Muslim terrorist situation I have ever read. His references to past history are accurate and clear. Not long, easy to understand, and well worth the read. The author of this email is said to be Dr. Emanuel Tanay, a well-known and well-respected psychiatrist.
A Germanâs View on Islam
A man, whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II, owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism. âVery few people were true Nazis,â he said, âbut many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.â
We are told again and again by âexpertsâ and âtalking headsâ that Islam is the religion of peace and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the spectre of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.
The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honour-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers.
The hard, quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the âsilent majority,â is cowed and extraneous.
Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. Chinaâs huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people.
The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet.
And who can forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery. Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were âpeace lovingâ?
History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points:
Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence.
Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they donât speak up, because like my friend from Germany, they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.
Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late. As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that countsâthe fanatics who threaten our way of life.
*A German View of Islam
This is by far the best explanation of the Muslim terrorist situation I have ever read. His references to past history are accurate and clear. Not long, easy to understand, and well worth the read. The author of this email is said to be Dr. Emanuel Tanay, a well-known and well-respected psychiatrist.
A Germanâs View on Islam
A man, whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II, owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism. âVery few people were true Nazis,â he said, âbut many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories.â
We are told again and again by âexpertsâ and âtalking headsâ that Islam is the religion of peace and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the spectre of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.
The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honour-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers.
The hard, quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the âsilent majority,â is cowed and extraneous.
Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. Chinaâs huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people.
The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet.
And who can forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery. Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were âpeace lovingâ?
History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points:
Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence.
Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they donât speak up, because like my friend from Germany, they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.
Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late. As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that countsâthe fanatics who threaten our way of life.
M
men0wjv
Guest
dheremi Peace I guess we clearly cannot communicate??? I think you understood something totally different to what I meant, in every comment??? Tried to offer some constructive solutions to our mis-communication and also certain well known fallacies of argumentation (straight and crooked thinking by a Cambridge Prof. is excellent, that is where I got the âred headâ argument from btw) and you pooh-pooh them without explaining why? I offer the Muslim understanding of a verse and try and empathise with how you may be feeling to aid a judgement youâre free to make and then it seems it was unwelcome? You donât like the verse, OK⌠was that it? Do you want me to empathise with that? OK, I could see how you might think that, OK?
Like I said, step back and look at the bigger picture (it would be interesting to see what youâd think re-reading my comments, say a week later, would you feel the same? You donât have to tell anyone your findings, but I know when I did that on another thread I realised my mistake, maybe I will on this one?) because youâve mentioned that we havenât discussed âexamplesâ or âpostulationsâ - which quite clearly we havenât - when that is not why I put them there at all, not even remotely close??? Maybe its my brevity, concision or deliberate attempt to use neutral language thats given a wrong impression???
It worked much better on a common word didnât it, so why the change???
Anyway, Iâm sorry for your grievences and I support your standing up for justice and support for persecuted Christians simply due to their being Christian. So though we may not know what the heck the other is talking about, we are at least allies
Guess we best knock it on the head, huh? No ill feeling on my part and I had no sinister plan behind any of it, guess just my human folly
I guess we clearly cannot communicate??? I think you understood something totally different to what I meant, in every comment??? Tried to offer some constructive solutions to our mis-communication and also certain well known fallacies of argumentation (straight and crooked thinking by a Cambridge Prof. is excellent, that is where I got the âred headâ argument from btw) and you pooh-pooh them without explaining why? I offer the Muslim understanding of a verse and try and empathise with how you may be feeling to aid a judgement youâre free to make and then it seems it was unwelcome? You donât like the verse, OK⌠was that it? Do you want me to empathise with that? OK, I could see how you might think that, OK?Like I said, step back and look at the bigger picture (it would be interesting to see what youâd think re-reading my comments, say a week later, would you feel the same? You donât have to tell anyone your findings, but I know when I did that on another thread I realised my mistake, maybe I will on this one?) because youâve mentioned that we havenât discussed âexamplesâ or âpostulationsâ - which quite clearly we havenât - when that is not why I put them there at all, not even remotely close??? Maybe its my brevity, concision or deliberate attempt to use neutral language thats given a wrong impression???
It worked much better on a common word didnât it, so why the change???
Anyway, Iâm sorry for your grievences and I support your standing up for justice and support for persecuted Christians simply due to their being Christian. So though we may not know what the heck the other is talking about, we are at least allies
Guess we best knock it on the head, huh? No ill feeling on my part and I had no sinister plan behind any of it, guess just my human folly
M
men0wjv
Guest
We are told again and again by âexpertsâ and âtalking headsâ that Islam is the religion of peace and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the spectre of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.
Thanks for this
I do have some thought provoking comments to add:
Let us not exaggerate. Terrorism does not happen in a vacuum, it is normally an extreme reaction to something that was extreme in itself. Robert Fisk - the notable journalist whoâs spent some 30 years in the Middle East - suggested the US government could help by changing its foreign policy and pulling the rug from under the terrorism; many are fuelled by anti US sentiment. Iâm not here to point the finger, but just to highlight that by taking a more positive approach rage filled terrorists would calm down. Reacting to terrorism with exaggerated aggression may incite yet more aggression - âan eye for an ey and the World goes blind,â sort of thing.
Change the media (donât know how?). The media coverage does not help, from both sides. Pictures from mad Muslim bombers blowing themselves up can incite an exaggerated response (since its not contextualised; the FBI said that Muslim terrorism accounted for just 0.4% of worldwide terrorism), it may even encourage others to do the same. Also all the ridiculous âinfidel,â âjihadâ books etc out there, do nothing to help the situation, since it puts psychic anti-bodies in peoples minds that make them think of Muslims as terrorists, which Muslims then react to. In the Arab world, pictures of Muslims suffering are plastered everywhere in graphic detail, and sometimes they are repeated again and again thus angering people and inciting people to react.
Just enough religion to hate. The Muslims need to look at their educational establishments. Whilst there are plenty of good ones there are some poor ones. They do not incite terrorism at all, but they do not teach anything really useful or relevant. AS such Muslims no little about their religion and so when some bloke with a beard and a hat comes speaking eloquent Arabic they are mezmorised. We need to educate ourselves to be critical thinkers and understand the whole religion rather than just teach our kids how to recite the Qurâan - and as it happens incorrectly. We need more religon, not less.
One kid in my school (Iâm a mathematics teacher) made some silly derogatory comment about the Jewish people, when I told him that Muhammad (pbuh) said that he would be the enemy of anyone who is unjust to a Jew simply because he is a Jew on the day of judgement, the boy looked embarrased and said âI didnât know.â
So we have an angry, media incited and ignorant group of people who feel down trodden and helpless⌠a very dangerous combination. The problem is multi-factoral and requires an intelligent solution. This might make an interesting conversation
C
Cinette
Guest
*You are very nice and I like you.Thanks for this
I do have some thought provoking comments to add:
Let us not exaggerate. Terrorism does not happen in a vacuum, it is normally an extreme reaction to something that was extreme in itself. Robert Fisk - the notable journalist whoâs spent some 30 years in the Middle East - suggested the US government could help by changing its foreign policy and pulling the rug from under the terrorism; many are fuelled by anti US sentiment. Iâm not here to point the finger, but just to highlight that by taking a more positive approach rage filled terrorists would calm down. Reacting to terrorism with exaggerated aggression may incite yet more aggression - âan eye for an ey and the World goes blind,â sort of thing.
Change the media (donât know how?). The media coverage does not help, from both sides. Pictures from mad Muslim bombers blowing themselves up can incite an exaggerated response (since its not contextualised; the FBI said that Muslim terrorism accounted for just 0.4% of worldwide terrorism), it may even encourage others to do the same. Also all the ridiculous âinfidel,â âjihadâ books etc out there, do nothing to help the situation, since it puts psychic anti-bodies in peoples minds that make them think of Muslims as terrorists, which Muslims then react to. In the Arab world, pictures of Muslims suffering are plastered everywhere in graphic detail, and sometimes they are repeated again and again thus angering people and inciting people to react.
Just enough religion to hate. The Muslims need to look at their educational establishments. Whilst there are plenty of good ones there are some poor ones. They do not incite terrorism at all, but they do not teach anything really useful or relevant. AS such Muslims no little about their religion and so when some bloke with a beard and a hat comes speaking eloquent Arabic they are mezmorised. We need to educate ourselves to be critical thinkers and understand the whole religion rather than just teach our kids how to recite the Qurâan - and as it happens incorrectly. We need more religon, not less.
One kid in my school (Iâm a mathematics teacher) made some silly derogatory comment about the Jewish people, when I told him that Muhammad (pbuh) said that he would be the enemy of anyone who is unjust to a Jew simply because he is a Jew on the day of judgement, the boy looked embarrased and said âI didnât know.â
So we have an angry, media incited and ignorant group of people who feel down trodden and helpless⌠a very dangerous combination. The problem is multi-factoral and requires an intelligent solution. This might make an interesting conversation
I need to read and reflect on what you have written here and also the whole thread. I do not have the time at the moment but will make time.
Yes I do blame the media for 60% of the problems - they are not to be trusted. Thank goodness we have CAF where we can make contact and learn from each other.
I do believe and trust from what I have learned from the Jubilee Campaign who report and document persecutions in Muslim countries. At the same time I must not allow myself to put all Muslims in the same basket.
It would be good to hear what other Muslims on this forum have to say. I usually find them evasive.
Cinette
M
men0wjv
Guest
Thanks*You are very nice and I like you.
I need to read and reflect on what you have written here and also the whole thread. I do not have the time at the moment but will make time.
Yes I do blame the media for 60% of the problems - they are not to be trusted. Thank goodness we have CAF where we can make contact and learn from each other.
I do believe and trust from what I have learned from the Jubilee Campaign who report and document persecutions in Muslim countries. At the same time I must not allow myself to put all Muslims in the same basket.
It would be good to hear what other Muslims on this forum have to say. I usually find them evasive.
Cinette
*
If you do read this whole thread (which would be quite labourious) could you please objectively comment on where dzheremi and I completely mis-understood each other; its difficult when youâre involved to remove yourself.
It would be nice to get a few Muslims here, but frankly all are welcome, just lets try and be constructive.
Peace my friend
PS: I notice you use the word revert, any particular reason (what were you before)? I know some Muslims use the word ârevert,â and personally I do not like it (due to their use, not yours
) because they seem to think all people are born in a state of Islam and so when they officially become Muslim they are returning to their former state. Theologically, this is incorrect (Islamically speaking) because we are born in a state of fitrah, not Islam. Fitrah is like the natural inclination of mankind to worship God and to do that which is good, perhaps something akin to ânatural lawâ as: âwritten in the human heartâ (Romans 2:14)?
C
Cinette
Guest
*I was born into a Catholic family and then left my Church - married an atheist - years later I returned to my Catholic faith (hence the term revert) and the unusual thing is that through a Jewish scientist my husband came to believe in God and investigated further (through science) and then after attending Mass for 11 years he converted.Thanks
If you do read this whole thread (which would be quite labourious) could you please objectively comment on where dzheremi and I completely mis-understood each other; its difficult when youâre involved to remove yourself.
It would be nice to get a few Muslims here, but frankly all are welcome, just lets try and be constructive.
Peace my friend
PS: I notice you use the word revert, any particular reason (what were you before)? I know some Muslims use the word ârevert,â and personally I do not like it (due to their use, not yours
We now go to daily Mass and find our Catholic faith exciting and beautiful.
Cinette
C
Cinette
Guest
Thanks for this
I do have some thought provoking comments to add:
Let us not exaggerate. Terrorism does not happen in a vacuum, it is normally an extreme reaction to something that was extreme in itself. Robert Fisk - the notable journalist whoâs spent some 30 years in the Middle East - suggested the US government could help by changing its foreign policy and pulling the rug from under the terrorism; many are fuelled by anti US sentiment. Iâm not here to point the finger, but just to highlight that by taking a more positive approach rage filled terrorists would calm down. Reacting to terrorism with exaggerated aggression may incite yet more aggression - âan eye for an ey and the World goes blind,â sort of thing. *I do believe that the West is responsible for fuelling hatred in the Middle East. We need to get to know and understand the culture. Terrorism is such a terrible thing - it is acts of cowardice where there are no rules of engagement. The terrorist will kill innocent people - men, women and children - in the most cruel ways. They breed suicide bombers, teach hatred and cultivate anger. There is no parallel or comparison in the history of humanity. They hide, disguise and pry on people in the most unlikely places and at any time. They are indeed cowards. *
Change the media (donât know how?). The media coverage does not help, from both sides. Pictures from mad Muslim bombers blowing themselves up can incite an exaggerated response (since its not contextualised; the FBI said that Muslim terrorism accounted for just 0.4% of worldwide terrorism), it may even encourage others to do the same. Also all the ridiculous âinfidel,â âjihadâ books etc out there, do nothing to help the situation, since it puts psychic anti-bodies in peoples minds that make them think of Muslims as terrorists, which Muslims then react to. In the Arab world, pictures of Muslims suffering are plastered everywhere in graphic detail, and sometimes they are repeated again and again thus angering people and inciting people to react.
Just enough religion to hate. The Muslims need to look at their educational establishments. Whilst there are plenty of good ones there are some poor ones.Poor is a mild description. They do not incite terrorism at all, but they do not teach anything really useful or relevant. AS such Muslims no little about their religion and so when some bloke with a beard and a hat comes speaking eloquent Arabic they are mezmorised. We need to educate ourselves to be critical thinkers and understand the whole religion rather than just teach our kids how to recite the Qurâan - *Yes, many have no idea what they are reciting! It is mechanical.*and as it happens incorrectly. We need more religon, not less. I understand you but the Qurâan is a very complicated book to understand - the sequence and abrogations - my husband started reading the Qurâan and he often calls my attention to certain verses and quite honestly I have no desire to read it. I do not see a loving and merciful God. I used to think Allah was just another name for God but I am having my doubts.
One kid in my school (Iâm a mathematics teacher) made some silly derogatory comment about the Jewish people, when I told him that Muhammad (pbuh) said that he would be the enemy of anyone who is unjust to a Jew simply because he is a Jew on the day of judgement, the boy looked embarrased and said âI didnât know.â
So we have an angry, media incited and ignorant group of people who feel down trodden and helpless⌠a very dangerous combination. *Agreed. This competition in the media to be âfirst with the newsâ is dangerous and often leads to mis-communication, misinterpretations, inaccuracy and the like. We the people, should know that at least 40% of what is reported in the media is untruthfull. But then, which 40%? How are we to know how to discern? So, in effect, the 40% gets mixed up with some truth and we end up with at least 50% if not more, inaccuracies. * The problem is multi-factoral and requires an intelligent solution. This might make an interesting conversation
M
men0wjv
Guest
Thanks for the posts
I would like to give a full reply, but I donât have the time at this moment in time. There was one thing that I was reflecting upon that was inspired by a (unfortunately very) brief look at the Jubilee Campaign website.I found this: âHistorians observe that more Christians have been hounded and killed in the twentieth century than in the rest of Christian history combinedâ. This statement may well be true, but that is not really my point. Although there are questions that spring to mind, such as which historians and how did they come to this conclusion exactly because it would seem quite difficult to prove. Anyway, the main point was that this seems worded in a very loaded modern way that is actually really un-Godly and aimed at inciting anger.
Traditionally in the three âAbrahamicâ faiths, events were seen as a narrative of Godâs plan. As such there was a certain element of acceptance and a question of looking for meaning in the events. Please do not mis-understand me; Iâm not saying that it makes these horrible things any less repulsive, but it does put them more into focus.
The Holocaust was a terrible terrible event in history. However, in Jewish history such a genocidal act is not all that unique. The question is, why have âZionistâ sentiments not been prevalent until recently. Mainly because the Zionist is not of the traditional religious World, but a modern innovation. The religious view of Jewish persecution was that it was a sign of Godâs love for His people; a sort of âyou hurt those whom you love the mostâ sort of thing. As the notable Jewish academic Norman Finklestein has pointed out, the promotion of Jewish suffering in âthe Holocaust Industryâ has fueled political Zionist aspirations, which have often been unsavory.
I see the same use of âMuslim sufferingâ used by groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood and Arab nationalists to try and incite anger and get support for unsavoury political agendas. It strikes me that the quote I used from the Jubilee Campaign website is also in this mould. Would you say such sentiment are on the rise? Please do not think that I am belittling Christian suffering or saying that we should just accept it. What Iâm trying to get at is that should we all succumb to modern âinterpretationsâ we may find ourselves entering into conflict when actually our traditional faiths would not condone such things. Basically, I suppose Iâm saying shouldnât we fear God more than we fear oppressors? I hope this makes sense.
Anyway I have to go, I hope to comment on some of your other points later - God willing.
Peace
M
men0wjv
Guest
BTW, is it now only myself and Cinette following this thread? Because I may start another specifically for some of the questions raised.
If you have read that, may God bless you and your family and if you havenât God bless you anyway
If you have read that, may God bless you and your family and if you havenât God bless you anyway
E
Eccela
Guest
I am sure there are a lot of us listening, it is interesting yet a very busy time so responses are harder to post.
M
men0wjv
Guest
4
4Horsemen
Guest
Hello men0wjv,
I was hoping to give a response to you on another thread which disappeared sometime before Thanksgiving. Your careful, deliberated answer to the question of Godâs attributes was intriguing because it very much resembles what may be Catholic thought and Muslim at the same time if understood correctly. If I remember, you said that Muslims would never say that God is love, only that God is loving, whereas Catholic theology deems that God is not only loving, but is the total personification of what love truly is. I guess one could say it is a metaphor as most of our talk of God is metaphorical and symbolical. This is true of Godâs speech in Scripture as He reveals Himself to us (Kings of kings, Prince of Peace, Lamb of God, Son of God, Son of Man, etc . . .)
If God can only be known and spoken of from His creatures, the question might be what is God in Himself? However, that would necessitate an access to Him that is not allowed us as creatures. So we can only know imperfectly the nature of God. As God says in Scripture, âMy ways are above your ways.â (Unfortunately, I canât find the exact reference).
Iâm trying to be clear, but what Iâm getting at is that both Mulim and Catholic understanding purport God to be transcendent â so far above and beyond our human comprehension â and immanent â so deep within all of His creation that we, His creatures are unable to understand His nature but to know through Wisdom that He is the source, center, and summit of our lives.
M
men0wjv
Guest
God says: I was a hidden treasure, so I loved to be known.â In other words, âI created the whole cosmos, and the goal in all of it was to make Myself manifest, sometimes through gentleness and sometimes through severity.â God is not the sort of King for whom a single herald would be sufficient. Were all the atoms of the universe His heralds, they would fall short and be incapable of making Him known [Rumi]
Love plays an important role in Islam just as in Christianity. Whilst there are many similarities and generally they are very much the same, there is a discernible difference. From our perspective we see Love and Mercy as the Divine Attributes that gave rise to the cosmos. All love is a manifestation of Godâs Love, the Love that He has for Himself: âGod is Beautiful and Loves beauty.â Whilst Mercy flows in one direction, from God to the cosmos, Love flows in both directions: *âHe loves them and they love Himâ *[5:54]. People cannot have Mercy on God, only on other creatures. Love is what closes the gap between God and His creation. The greater the love, the greater the degree of participation in the Divine image, and thus the greater the degree of human perfection.
I read a book about Aquinasâ metaphysics at the same time I read one by ibn al Arabi. There were so many similarities, but yet there was a discernible difference. For example we both see that there is a hierarchy in creation. Aquinas speaks of a hierarchy of being, in which God is the perfect Being, everything else is a lesser degree of being all the way until it becomes non existent. ibn al Arabi speaks of a hierarchy of relationships, of states. We view God as the only Being, absolute existence, whilst we do exist it is only contingently, not through anything of ourselves, but through Godâs existence. The hierarchy is not between God and creation because He is ultimatley transcendent, but His intelligible position of Divinity (this does not exist, its just something that can be known). The position of Divinity is All Powerful, we are powerful, but less so etc.
There are many many more examples, which highlight an outwardly very similar view of the universe, but it is in the details where there is difference. We are certainly closer than many would have it.
I have to run, sorryâŚ
- Status