Resolution On Being Faithful Muslims and Loyal Americans

[manualman]

OK, ‘hired help’ is rather too harsh. Point was that theologians, even when priests, do not rank with bishops in teaching authority. Far too many of them give the impression that they believe they do.

Unless I’m mistaken, I think Fr. Curran is still a priest with faculties intact. His censure IIRC is limited to the fact that he is not authorized to teach catholic theology as a representative of the Church. He even skirts that by teaching his opinions as catholic theology at a protestant university. I in no way meant to imply any history of ecclesiatical censure of Fr. Brown. I included him because in my limited reading of him I continuously got a vague sense that he was open to redefining things already defined. Can’t recall citation right now(as usual for me), but I’m pretty sure I once heard him express doubt about the literal existence of angels and Satan, reducing them to literary types. That sort of thing. I have little tolerance for attempts to de-supernaturalize Scripture and faith.

I object to people in my own lifetime constantly attempting to recreate the Catholic Church according to their own opinions and desires. Perhaps that why I’m suspicious of people suggesting that religions and religious systems can be changed from what they are today into what we’d like them to be instead. That just seems dishonest and manipulative. I’d rather see muslims become christians than Islam be modified to something less dangerous.

 

[Khalid]

Let’s indeed consider the question of language. Here’s the basic issue: when we name a religion (although, in my opinion, the issue is complicated from the start by the failure of scholars to find a satisfactory "neutral’ definition of religion in the first place) are we speaking as nominalists or realists?

Obviously, I am speaking as a real essentialist - I hold real essentialism (most specifically an Aristotelian-Thomist form) in all domains of knowledge. I obviously don’t believe nominalism or conceptualism to be defensible metaphysical positions.

It is also increasingly obvious that in anything other than an essentialist view, everything boils down to some variation of the “No True Scotsman” fallacy; without an objective essence, we can define “true” X as whatever we want X to mean. In this way, some Muslims say, “no true Muslim would engage in homicide bombing”, so on.

 

[Contarini]

Obviously, I am speaking as a real essentialist - I hold real essentialism (most specifically an Aristotelian-Thomist form) in all domains of knowledge. I obviously don’t believe nominalism or conceptualism to be defensible metaphysical positions.

It is also increasingly obvious that in anything other than an essentialist view, everything boils down to some variation of the “No True Scotsman” fallacy; without an objective essence, we can define “true” X as whatever we want X to mean. In this way, some Muslims say, “no true Muslim would engage in homicide bombing”, so on.

I’m puzzled by this argument. It strikes me that on the contrary, the “No True Scotsman” fallacy presupposes essentialism. People who say “no true Muslim would be a bomber” are working not from empirical observation of what self-professed Muslims actually say and do, but from the assumption that there is an essence of true Islam, and that if people who call themselves Muslims do things that violate that essence, then they aren’t “true Muslims.”

Similarly (and this is the position I generally find myself arguing against on this forum with regard to Islam), folks opposed to Islam often assume that there is an “essence” of “real Islam” that supports the more radical and/or conservative versions of Islam, so that moderate/liberal Muslims aren’t “true Muslims.”

By saying that there is no essence of Islam (not because I disbelieve in essences generally, but because I don’t think there is an essence of any “religion” other than divinely revealed and/or naturally known truth), I’m setting myself against both forms of the “no true Muslim fallacy.”

I think it’s a logical mistake to assume that because there are essences, therefore every name points to an essence. I would say that some do, and some don’t, and it’s important to keep straight which is which.

Edwin

 

[manualman]

I think it’s a logical mistake to assume that because there are essences, therefore every name points to an essence. I would say that some do, and some don’t, and it’s important to keep straight which is which.

I get what you are saying, but how does that idea really work in practice when each person decides for himself which topics are in which category? I get lost when the philosophical vocabulary comes trotting out, but it seems to me that without words that have definitions, people talk past each other instead of communicating. I’ve always felt that miscomunication is better than 50% of the causes of human conflict. It seems to me that encouraging people to use contradictory definitions for the same word is just degeneration towards a new Tower of Babel experience.

Instead of minimizing the (IMO) apalling flaws in the teachings of Islam, I prefer to think we have a better hope of mutual coexistence by recognizing that the virtues and vices of PEOPLE are not necessarily the same as the virtues and vices of the value system they belong to. That’s how I personally come to grips with it being OK to live in a neighborhood containing muslims without worrying about it.

And that idea also works both ways since I can similarly have the hope that the human goodness in said muslims neighbors will allow them to recognize that even though I am this weirdo who believes three persons can be one God, I’m not necessarily trying to sell his son Playboys or sneak a glimpse of his wife’s lovely hair… (They have some serious stereotypes about us too!)

 

[Contarini]

I get what you are saying, but how does that idea really work in practice when each person decides for himself which topics are in which category?

It’s not that hard. You can’t use the phrase “true Islam” unless you think Islam is true. If, as I believe along with most Christians historically, Islam is a heretical offshoot of Christianity, then “true Islam” is an oxymoron. There’s nothing for it to be true to.

Here’s another way of looking at it: Muslims believe in the Qur’an, true; mainstream, traditional, “orthodox” Sunni Muslims accept one of the four schools of fiqh, true; but they do these things because they believe that these authorities embody divinely revealed truth. That is the “essence” that makes Islam “true” in their eyes. That’s what they mean when they say someone is a “true Muslim” or not. Similarly, what we mean when we say that something is true or orthodox Christianity is not just that it agrees with some historical/literary “objective truth” about the Bible or the Christian tradition (in some cases what we Christians say the Bible or the Christian tradition means may be different from what an outside observer thinks it means), but that it agrees with divine truth revealed in Jesus.

Instead of minimizing the (IMO) apalling flaws in the teachings of Islam, I prefer to think we have a better hope of mutual coexistence by recognizing that the virtues and vices of PEOPLE are not necessarily the same as the virtues and vices of the value system they belong to. That’s how I personally come to grips with it being OK to live in a neighborhood containing muslims without worrying about it.

But this sounds quite a bit like Jack Chick’s protestations of “loving the dear Roman Catholics” while spewing appalling slanders about your religion, doesn’t it? Why do most Catholics find this unconvincing? For the very obvious reason that Mr. Chick’s “love” of Catholics ought to lead him to try to understand why rational human beings made in God’s image, seeking truth and goodness, believe things that he considers absurd and monstrous. Instead of jumping to conspiracy theories in which the “dear Roman Catholics” are clueless peons manipulated by the sinister Vatican, he ought to read the writings of Pope Benedict and other Catholic leaders and hear the deep love of Jesus evident in these writings.

It is certainly true that one can love people and hate their religious errors. But if one jumps (as Jack Chick does) to the worst possible conclusions about people’s religion, then it may well be because one is not quite as loving as one wishes to think of oneself (of course, few of us are as loving as we would like to think).

I recognize that you didn’t use the word “love.” But it works the same way when you speak of mutual coexistence. If you don’t try to understand what is good and true about Muslims’ religion, and the ways in which their religion actually helps them be good people in certain respects, then your “mutual coexistence” will always be contingent on your success (and that of the culture more broadly) in secularizing Muslims and depriving them of their own heritage. That’s not a very promising prospect, long term.

And that idea also works both ways since I can similarly have the hope that the human goodness in said muslims neighbors will allow them to recognize that even though I am this weirdo who believes three persons can be one God, I’m not necessarily trying to sell his son Playboys or sneak a glimpse of his wife’s lovely hair… (They have some serious stereotypes about us too!)

Indeed. And if, for instance, Muslims don’t try to understand Christian sexual ethics as found in the Sermon on the Mount–if they believe, like Sayyid Qutb (a view shared in more moderate degrees by more moderate Muslim writers), that Christian ethics are a “hideous schizophrenia,” then Muslims will be prone to continue holding these stereotypes. An important part of their learning to respect you is understanding that in fact the apparently unrealistic Christian teachings of the Sermon on the Mount do help Christians live honest, decent lives, and aren’t an obstacle to doing so. (The Muslim argument I’m referring to is that because Christian ethics are so unrealistic, most Christians wind up disregarding them and having few effective moral guidelines, and thus, being the sort of people who might try to sell Playboys to the sons of Muslims!)

Thus, while one certainly can be charitable toward people whose views one considers evil and one can live in peace with them, a disposition to err on the generous side, if anything, when evaluating their beliefs is an expression of charity and a powerful incentive to live at peace with them.

If Muslims would cultivate that disposition, there would be quite a bit less Islamic violence, I think. We Christians need to show them a good example.

Edwin

 

[manualman]

But this sounds quite a bit like Jack Chick’s protestations of “loving the dear Roman Catholics” while spewing appalling slanders about your religion, doesn’t it? Why do most Catholics find this unconvincing?

Edwin, you do a great job of expressing your thoughts clearly ond concisely. Makes me jealous!

I personally find Jack Chick unconvincing because what he describes as catholicism is ignorant of what is ACTUALLY taught by catholicism. Catholics have no trouble recognizing the caricature and laugh him off as they should.

What I find objectionable about Islam is based largely on some problems in the supposedly perfect example Muhammad gave. I’M not making up the assertion that Islam holds up Muhammad this way, that’s what I have learned about Islamic teaching from muslims. It’s not a lie or a slander to allege that Muhammad killed people (and ordered more) for the offense of being ‘unbelievers,’ it’s an example plain as day in the Koran. While catholics surely have too in history, JESUS didn’t. And Jesus is the basis of our faith, not popes or doctors of the church. There are no apalling examples of behavior in His life that hamstring christianity. As developments in Libya right now show, Muhammad’s example of polygamy being virtuous is a fixed feature of Islam. How do you hope for reform in such a context? I think that’s been Khalid’s point and it sounds like the crisis of recognition that sparked his conversion to Christ.

 

[Peace_of_cake]

Edwin, you do a great job of expressing your thoughts clearly ond concisely. Makes me jealous!

I personally find Jack Chick unconvincing because what he describes as catholicism is ignorant of what is ACTUALLY taught by catholicism. Catholics have no trouble recognizing the caricature and laugh him off as they should.

What I find objectionable about Islam is based largely on some problems in the supposedly perfect example Muhammad gave. I’M not making up the assertion that Islam holds up Muhammad this way, that’s what I have learned about Islamic teaching from muslims. It’s not a lie or a slander to allege that Muhammad killed people (and ordered more) for the offense of being ‘unbelievers,’ it’s an example plain as day in the Koran. While catholics surely have too in history, JESUS didn’t. And Jesus is the basis of our faith, not popes or doctors of the church. There are no apalling examples of behavior in His life that hamstring christianity. As developments in Libya right now show, Muhammad’s example of polygamy being virtuous is a fixed feature of Islam. How do you hope for reform in such a context? I think that’s been Khalid’s point and it sounds like the crisis of recognition that sparked his conversion to Christ.

This seems like a really decent thread; there have been coherent and well thought out posts, which makes a nice change to the normal mindless Islam bashing. Alas I haven’t been able to keep up. This is a shame because I had a few questions for Khalid because I believe he has missed a great deal and oversimplified a few things. For example the commentators who use the word ‘abrogate’ for the verse of the sword meant something completely different to ‘abrogation’ of later scholars, also the use of ‘sufi’ as having any bearing on Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) when tasawwuf (Sufism) is the branch of Islam concerned with one’s inner state. Anyway, these were some questions, but I don’t really want to go off the current topic - it’s been hard enough to keep up as it is.
Perhaps one problem we westerners have is try and impose our understanding on Islam. That is what I have observed. So things like not understanding that Muhammad was both the manifestation of the jamal and the jalal or beauty and majesty. He was not only the sword to the ego but also injustice. We may quibble about this or that, but that’s generally how they see it.
Reading about medieval Europe this kind of thing does not seem all that odd. It is more of a contrast with the modern world I think than the pre modern one. Just to mention two more things: Jesus was never head of state which will account for some difference, I’m uneasy about Catholics say vicarius Christie and the body of the church are not our example. Unfortunately I have to go, but we may wish to compare like for like? Basically any modern pandering we can do then why can’t they?
If that sounds a little off then please forgive me - unintentional
PS: Sayyid Qutub is a good example of modernised Islamicised Marxism not normative Sunni Islam

 

[KathleenGee]

What about these Muslims…the ones that are now getting ready to file a lawsuit against Catholic University for refusing them to form a Muslim group, and not providing them prayer rooms without a crucifix of Jesus looking at them, or paintings, or pictures of the pope, of priests and theologians…

What are they trying to pull? Would they allow Catholic students the same rights in their places of origin???

I remember there was one woman in Italy from Finland who wanted all the crosses removed from public places…

 

[Peace_of_cake]

What about these Muslims…the ones that are now getting ready to file a lawsuit against Catholic University for refusing them to form a Muslim group, and not providing them prayer rooms without a crucifix of Jesus looking at them, or paintings, or pictures of the pope, of priests and theologians…

What are they trying to pull? Would they allow Catholic students the same rights in their places of origin???

I remember there was one woman in Italy from Finland who wanted all the crosses removed from public places…

It may be that’s more a problem with modern world? We all have to be equal and be pluralist. So a Catholic College can’t stay as Catholic.
It seems fairly reasonable that they have somewhere to pray without images they find problematic, like you said how would we like it?
The religion of Islam has much in it about preserving other’s places of worship, so as their religion goes then I see no reason why they wouldn’t have dispensations for Catholic students in a Muslim College?
Of course there is a modern ‘political movement’ of Islam, where politics is the aim, but islam is used as a rallying cry. Traditionally Muslim areas defined themselves as a kinship not based on blood but faith. It is deep within their respective cultures to see unity and Muslim as synonymous. However like Catholics they don’t often know all that much about their religion and so use it to suit them, like families here wanting rights as Muslims, but actually they just want perks for their family, tribe or countrymen.
To quote Michael Hudson from the chapter Islam and politics found in the book Islam and development edited by John Esposito Syracuse Uni:

To try to identify some peculiarly Islamic trait as the cause of the various conflicts between the West and the Islamic world is to miss the point that these conflicts are political, not religious, and that they do not differ fundamentally from the conflicts between the West and the Third World in general. In the Middle East Islam is one of a number of solidarity myths, such as nationalism, that are invoked in the struggles with the outsiders.

Traditional Sunni and Shia Islam has been sidelined and political movements has filled the void, they may be fascist, socialist etc in nature not ‘Islamic.’ Muslims who are serious about their religion hate these religio-political movements just as much as we do, perhaps more so

 

[Khalid]

It may be that’s more a problem with modern world? We all have to be equal and be pluralist. So a Catholic College can’t stay as Catholic.

I have no problem with pluralism. I do have a problem with degenerate pluralism, called multiculturalism, that leads to an absolute form of cultural relativism. A Catholic College can remain Catholic; no Muslim is forced to attend, and they are not required to provide services for Muslims. The Muslims can go to a masjid; if they wish to reap the benefits of a Catholic educational institution, so be it.

If not, they can attend a Muslim educational institution. I fear a secular institution would be worse in the eyes of most Muslims. However, for seeking theoretical, empirical, philosophical, or scientific knowledge, Muslim universities are next to worthless; for seeking knowledge of the Koran and Hadith according to traditional Islamic thought, they are excellent. If a Christian wanted to learn the Islamic sciences of Koran and Hadith from the traditional perspective, what right has he to demand that al-Azhar give him a chapel with a crucifix in it?

Muslims, Catholics, and Seculars must all be held to the same standard - this is pluralism. Holding each to their own standard - as allowing a man to beat his wife because Koran 4:34 allows it, or allowing him to be a bigamist - and collect the dole for it - as is now the case in the UK - or giving dispensations to one group instead of another is a tyranny of relativism, and the evil of multiculturalism, or even intellectual or cultural terrorism, as now in Eastern Studies, anything that is disliked by the orthodoxy of Islam is virtually disallowed under mostly self-, and some external, censorship, such as the “blasphemy laws” that are enforced only against non-Muslims, or the forced censorship of a UN special rapporteur on human rights after charges of blasphemy were brought against him - on the floor of the UN - by the Organization for the Islamic Conference. (The Myth of Islamic Tolerance, essay by David Littman, collected essays edited by Robert Spencer)

Unfashionable as the truth is, some cultures are superior to others. A culture that views women the way Islam does is inferior, in an absolute sense, to a culture that is more egalitarian. A culture that values universal human rights and the natural moral law is as well.

One must only compare the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and related instruments to the Cairo Declaration of “Human Rights” in Islam.

Islam has historically had a very dim view of non-Arabs as well, whether they were Africans or Persians. The Nation of Islam-type myth of a colorblind Islam is just that - a myth. Islamic regions practiced legal slavery far longer than anywhere else in the world, and several areas still do. The same can be said for pogroms and genocides - the Holocaust gets all of the attention, but what about the Armenians? The Southern Sudanese?

Muslims who are serious about their religion hate these religio-political movements just as much as we do, perhaps more so

Where are these Muslims? I hear about them all the time, but my only contact with them has been when they are arguing to Christians and Seculars that Islam is “the religion of peace” - they’ve not spent any time trying to convince their coreligionists of it. Add to that the alarmingly high rate of what Western Muslims say is their acceptance of homicide bombing in polls - almost 30% by most measures. Even if that’s accurate, it shows that the violent political types have the support to return to classical, 12th-century imperial Islam; the reformers don’t. And how many people, being asked, “do you think homicide bombing is ever justified?” are going to say “no”, even if they think “yes”, for fear of being branded a terrorist, especially in the West, where these polls have taken place?

 

[Peace_of_cake]

I have no problem with pluralism…

Not sure I know what you mean. What’s the difference?
Here in the UK Muslims are forced to attend if its a state run thing. I think if its a denominational school with state funding then 10% have to be non-denominational. This of course puts every religion at a great disadvantage; can the diocese really afford the annual multi million fees of modern education? If it is private then I believe this would be no problem. Of course it comes under the Human Rights of freedom of religion.

If not, they can attend a Muslim educational institution…

Bit of a simplification here?
Iran is generally considered the number one place for mathematics. The Persians and Arabs are also at the forefront of Engineering and Physics also medicine… So I can’t understand some of your comments. The Muslim scholarly community who were once the envy of the world (I do not exaggerate) are now much inferior.
Al Azhar’s curriculum is not like Salafi Madina my friend, they’ll study fiqh and kalam so of course they’ll study all kinds of linguistic sciences and arts and also philosophies relating to theology and legal theory. You made an assertion before that philosophy was denied or something… not really true. Sure, speculative theology was (is that really a bad thing, is it not a synonym for conjecture?), but then it was through assertions that Hume made centuries later in the West; effect is not logically caused by a cause. They sort of believe in what we may call occasionalism. Its not through simple minded literalism like fundi Christians, but through high level philosophical discourse.
Classically it would be odd for Christians to attend Al Azhar, but if they did…? Maybe they do now, its not like Cairo is not pluralistic and there’s more there now that just the Islamic sciences. Anyone live in Cairo and can go check?
Muslim fears of secularism is probably due to historically it being a way of propagating some sort of colonialist hegemony, it didn’t grow organically as it did here. To be honest this is complicated.

David Littman, collected essays edited by Robert Spencer)

I give you peer reviewed academic literature from the Worlds top universities and you post right wing propaganda! Avoid this like the devil my friend because that who is whispering to them all these ideas.

Unfashionable as the truth is, some cultures are superior to others… A culture that values universal human rights and the natural moral law is as well.

True some are, but then based on what measuring device? If were talking about Human Rights then we’re talking about humanism or where man is the centre of the universe. We don’t hold this, God is! This is not to say that some things in the bill of human rights are wrong per se, generally they are fine but when we enter into specificity they become problematic. I would say Muslims have any difference on this point.
Natural moral law? Does the modern west really value it? I’d say since morality was separated from legal, political or even scientific theory then it doesn’t hold any sway at all. Wouldn’t say Muslim ‘morality’ is any different in principle.

Islam has historically had a very dim view of non-Arabs as well

You keep making statements like this… how can a religion dislike a person? It makes no sense!!! If you meant Muslims have had a dim-view of non-Arabs then yes there have been times, but that was mainly earlier on… Did the Ottomons who ruled the Muslims for 900 years have an inferiority complex to their Arab subjects? How do we define Arab anyway? Classically it was anyone who could speak classical Arabic… so what does that mean for what you’ve said?

Where are these Muslims?

Everywhere, why not take the Christian attitude of loving thy neighbour and spend your time with Muslims. Irrespective of where you go you’ll find them everywhere. They just don’t make the media… funny that!
Where was random stat from? What was the question? Is that Islam talking or modern religio-political propoganda? I can tell you that Europol have some interesting statistics that are actually reliable, visit there website. Only 0.4% of terrorism in Europe can be attributed to Muslims, some 88% being for political separatist groups like the Basque
Where was the holocaust by the way? How did Ottoman Jews fair?

Look guys, read reputable work, be fair and check thing reliability. If we don’t then we do a diservice to our religion and follow Robert Spencer with his mentor Geert Widers into the next 3rd Reich! Seriously compare 1930’s German propaganda about Jews to some modern ones about Muslims and tell me the difference!

 

[manualman]

…Where was the holocaust by the way? How did Ottoman Jews fair?

Um, didn’t the Ottoman Empire collapse before WWII? Ever hear of Haj Amin al Husseini? (Hint, he wasn’t a frequent tea buddy of Churchill…)

These assertions undercut your credibility in areas that I am not familiar with, I’m afraid.

 

[jakasaki]

Ever hear of Haj Amin al Husseini? (Hint, he wasn’t a frequent tea buddy of Churchill…)

These assertions undercut your credibility in areas that I am not familiar with, I’m afraid.

Oh yeah - I remember him… Hitlers buddy.

He was the grand mufti of Jerusalem and he was in charge of a German SS division of about 10,000 muslims who went after a killing spree of the Jews in WWII.

 

[KathleenGee]

Peaceofcake…are you in some form of liberal management? I have read there are geographical areas of UK that are off limits to non-Muslims.

You seem to invalidate people’s concerns regarding Islam…Muslims in CAIR are telling the Department of Justice to find a way to criminalize criticism of Islam here.

I had some negative experiences with those who moved into our neighborhood after 9/11…one of the most violent mosques was built about 3 miles north of me…

And I find it strange that Islamicists are making their appearance known now on just about every American campus, their presence intimidating and frightening to the students. Moderate Muslims can’t say anything for fear of being targeted by the more radical types.

It is all looking orchestrated, including Arab Spring that is appearing at present to bring in Islamicists governments…

And 85% of the Egyptian Muslims claim tolerance of other religions, but believe in the death penalty for any Muslim who wants to convert to another religion…CNN.

This movement of immigration into the USA after 9/11 and subsequent adversarial lawsuits by new immigrant Muslims coming in, as well as Americans being killed by some of them shouting Allah Akbar, and the Feds denying them as crimes of terrorism, is another driving wedge between we the people and the evolving, transnational government having power over us.

When the activists deny any rights to Christian, but sue us to get their rights, that is poor citizenship that is building more alarms and division than any good towards integration.

 

[Peace_of_cake]

Um, didn’t the Ottoman Empire collapse before WWII? Ever hear of Haj Amin al Husseini? (Hint, he wasn’t a frequent tea buddy of Churchill…)

These assertions undercut your credibility in areas that I am not familiar with, I’m afraid.

oops fair point, yep it did collapse in 1924. There just a lot of Safarvid Jews there. There are some in Morocco too, just since it had some German influence thought I’d go with Turkey. Just to get people thinking really, so thanks for this
Yeah nasty character along with many others that can be found. Of course any tradition can have thus done against them, so for example every bishop in 3rd reich signed to support Hitler… Who claimed Catholicism too. It’s not really all that useful.
My main aim was to get people to stop saying Muslims are anti Semitic (when Arabs are Semitic) when historically - despite dark periods - there faired better than in Europe.

 

[KathleenGee]

Acknowledged…the Arab/Jewish relationship is fratricidal…and can eventually bring down the entire world into flames.

 

[rikkk1958]

Khalid reminds me of his articulation of the topics like that of Mr. Qureshi of the Acts 17. A convert from Islam, now a Christian, but a very good debater.

I wish to know if Khalid doesn’t mind to relate to us how and why he became a Catholic. I really like how this guy talk. Nice to know you Khalid.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

I have no problem with pluralism. I do have a problem with degenerate pluralism, called multiculturalism, that leads to an absolute form of cultural relativism. A Catholic College can remain Catholic; no Muslim is forced to attend, and they are not required to provide services for Muslims. The Muslims can go to a masjid; if they wish to reap the benefits of a Catholic educational institution, so be it.

If not, they can attend a Muslim educational institution. I fear a secular institution would be worse in the eyes of most Muslims. However, for seeking theoretical, empirical, philosophical, or scientific knowledge, Muslim universities are next to worthless; for seeking knowledge of the Koran and Hadith according to traditional Islamic thought, they are excellent. If a Christian wanted to learn the Islamic sciences of Koran and Hadith from the traditional perspective, what right has he to demand that al-Azhar give him a chapel with a crucifix in it?

Muslims, Catholics, and Seculars must all be held to the same standard - this is pluralism. Holding each to their own standard - as allowing a man to beat his wife because Koran 4:34 allows it, or allowing him to be a bigamist - and collect the dole for it - as is now the case in the UK - or giving dispensations to one group instead of another is a tyranny of relativism, and the evil of multiculturalism, or even intellectual or cultural terrorism, as now in Eastern Studies, anything that is disliked by the orthodoxy of Islam is virtually disallowed under mostly self-, and some external, censorship, such as the “blasphemy laws” that are enforced only against non-Muslims, or the forced censorship of a UN special rapporteur on human rights after charges of blasphemy were brought against him - on the floor of the UN - by the Organization for the Islamic Conference. (The Myth of Islamic Tolerance, essay by David Littman, collected essays edited by Robert Spencer)

Unfashionable as the truth is, some cultures are superior to others. A culture that views women the way Islam does is inferior, in an absolute sense, to a culture that is more egalitarian. A culture that values universal human rights and the natural moral law is as well.

One must only compare the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and related instruments to the Cairo Declaration of “Human Rights” in Islam.

Islam has historically had a very dim view of non-Arabs as well, whether they were Africans or Persians. The Nation of Islam-type myth of a colorblind Islam is just that - a myth. Islamic regions practiced legal slavery far longer than anywhere else in the world, and several areas still do. The same can be said for pogroms and genocides - the Holocaust gets all of the attention, but what about the Armenians? The Southern Sudanese?

Where are these Muslims? I hear about them all the time, but my only contact with them has been when they are arguing to Christians and Seculars that Islam is “the religion of peace” - they’ve not spent any time trying to convince their coreligionists of it. Add to that the alarmingly high rate of what Western Muslims say is their acceptance of homicide bombing in polls - almost 30% by most measures. Even if that’s accurate, it shows that the violent political types have the support to return to classical, 12th-century imperial Islam; the reformers don’t. And how many people, being asked, “do you think homicide bombing is ever justified?” are going to say “no”, even if they think “yes”, for fear of being branded a terrorist, especially in the West, where these polls have taken place?

I’ve reading this thread and I must say—Welcome, Khalid!!! Where have you been all this time?
Seriously, though----thank you sincerely for a thoughtful, cogent elucidation of what Islam really from soemone who KNOWS.

 

[Khalid]

oops fair point, yep it did collapse in 1924. There just a lot of Safarvid Jews there. There are some in Morocco too, just since it had some German influence thought I’d go with Turkey. Just to get people thinking really, so thanks for this
Yeah nasty character along with many others that can be found. Of course any tradition can have thus done against them, so for example every bishop in 3rd reich signed to support Hitler… Who claimed Catholicism too. It’s not really all that useful.
My main aim was to get people to stop saying Muslims are anti Semitic (when Arabs are Semitic) when historically - despite dark periods - there faired better than in Europe.

That’s one of the most common Islamist lines I hear - “Arabs are Semitic”. Over 80% of Muslims are not Arabs (most are Asian), and if Arab Muslims aren’t “anti-Semitic” because they are Semites, they most certainly are consumed with a burning fire of Judaeophobia and Jew-hatred: they’re not anti-Semitic per se, just anti-Jewish.

As evidenced by the many verses in the Koran and ahadith that deal with Jews (“the tree says to the mumin, ‘there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him’”) to the constant re-printing as Gospel truth of such bull as “The Protocols of Zion” in Egypt, KSA, and other Muslim countries.

Not to mention the home-grown anti-Judaism and anti-Zionism (it’s pretty much the same thing, regardless of the liberal establishment spin) that is a must in every single daily newspaper across the Middle East, and the constant blame of the Jews and Zionists and Crusaders for why the Islamic world is 750 years behind the West (maybe it’s the imitation and veneration of a 7th century Bedouin warlord and horselord as the perfect man instead?).

Jew-hatred is growing in a vicious circle at an exponential rate across all of the Muslim world, with the exception of some Sufis and the Ahmadis - one heterodox, the latter apostate, in the eyes of Muslims.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Not sure I know what you mean. What’s the difference?
Here in the UK Muslims are forced to attend if its a state run thing. I think if its a denominational school with state funding then 10% have to be non-denominational. This of course puts every religion at a great disadvantage; can the diocese really afford the annual multi million fees of modern education? If it is private then I believe this would be no problem. Of course it comes under the Human Rights of freedom of religion.

Bit of a simplification here?
Iran is generally considered the number one place for mathematics. The Persians and Arabs are also at the forefront of Engineering and Physics also medicine… So I can’t understand some of your comments. The Muslim scholarly community who were once the envy of the world (I do not exaggerate) are now much inferior.
Al Azhar’s curriculum is not like Salafi Madina my friend, they’ll study fiqh and kalam so of course they’ll study all kinds of linguistic sciences and arts and also philosophies relating to theology and legal theory. You made an assertion before that philosophy was denied or something… not really true. Sure, speculative theology was (is that really a bad thing, is it not a synonym for conjecture?), but then it was through assertions that Hume made centuries later in the West; effect is not logically caused by a cause. They sort of believe in what we may call occasionalism. Its not through simple minded literalism like fundi Christians, but through high level philosophical discourse.
Classically it would be odd for Christians to attend Al Azhar, but if they did…? Maybe they do now, its not like Cairo is not pluralistic and there’s more there now that just the Islamic sciences. Anyone live in Cairo and can go check?
Muslim fears of secularism is probably due to historically it being a way of propagating some sort of colonialist hegemony, it didn’t grow organically as it did here. To be honest this is complicated.

I give you peer reviewed academic literature from the Worlds top universities and you post right wing propaganda! Avoid this like the devil my friend because that who is whispering to them all these ideas.

True some are, but then based on what measuring device? If were talking about Human Rights then we’re talking about humanism or where man is the centre of the universe. We don’t hold this, God is! This is not to say that some things in the bill of human rights are wrong per se, generally they are fine but when we enter into specificity they become problematic. I would say Muslims have any difference on this point.
Natural moral law? Does the modern west really value it? I’d say since morality was separated from legal, political or even scientific theory then it doesn’t hold any sway at all. Wouldn’t say Muslim ‘morality’ is any different in principle.

You keep making statements like this… how can a religion dislike a person? It makes no sense!!! If you meant Muslims have had a dim-view of non-Arabs then yes there have been times, but that was mainly earlier on… Did the Ottomons who ruled the Muslims for 900 years have an inferiority complex to their Arab subjects? How do we define Arab anyway? Classically it was anyone who could speak classical Arabic… so what does that mean for what you’ve said?

Everywhere, why not take the Christian attitude of loving thy neighbour and spend your time with Muslims. Irrespective of where you go you’ll find them everywhere. They just don’t make the media… funny that!
Where was random stat from? What was the question? Is that Islam talking or modern religio-political propoganda? I can tell you that Europol have some interesting statistics that are actually reliable, visit there website. Only 0.4% of terrorism in Europe can be attributed to Muslims, some 88% being for political separatist groups like the Basque
Where was the holocaust by the way? How did Ottoman Jews fair?

Look guys, read reputable work, be fair and check thing reliability. If we don’t then we do a diservice to our religion and follow Robert Spencer with his mentor Geert Widers into the next 3rd Reich! Seriously compare 1930’s German propaganda about Jews to some modern ones about Muslims and tell me the difference!

I don’t mean to interject my two cents in this very interesting discussion, but just because Robert Spencer leans “right” (and is a fellow Melkite Catholic, as a matter of fact), that in of itself does not invalidate the fact that he is one of the top experts on the religion of Islam in the world.
Apparently an expert is not an “expert” if they happen to disagree with your idea of what Islam is.

By that standard, the great Bernard Lewis is worthless since he is a westerner who is NOT (gasp!) Muslim and he is not afraid to talk about certain things that Islam is.

Very illuminating, what you just said. Only quote sources to you that agree with your religious/political viewpoint. Gotcha.