Some surprising statements on the Catholic Answers website.

[pro_universal]

I’d like to note two things that the authors of this article and that Robert Spencer have in common:

1. No credentials in the study of History
2. No credentials in the study of Islamic theology or politics.

I’m operating on an assumption that I think is well supported by the demands of rational thought: If you want to know about science, ask a scientist. If you want to know about history, ask a historian. If you want to know about Catholicism, ask a Bishop. And if you want to know about Islam, ask a Muslim scholar.

As for 1: Look for some respected western scholars on middle eastern history. If you can find one who makes a case similar to Spencer’s, please send me the citation for his book. As it stands, the only conclusion I can draw from having read “The Politically Incorrect Guide” to Islam is that it’s not only politically incorrect, it’s grossly factually incorrect as well.

As for 2: How exactly does one presume to know what Muslims preach if he or she has zero experience studying the religion of the Muslims? If I want to know what the Catholic Church teaches, I will consult the Catechism. The Equivalent in Islam is available in the works of Fiqh produced by the four schools: Shafi’i, Hanbali, Maliki, and Hanafi.

Strangely, 100 percent of the “Islam is a violent religion” articles seem to have absolutely no concept or understanding of the import of using a source that is considered authoritative by most muslims. It would be like people making statements about the Catholic Church’s teaching without having any clue or feeling the need to mention that we have Church Councils, a Catechism, and numerous works of interpretation in order to illuminate our understanding of the Bible.

The “just look at muslims today” line is disingenuous and wrong. Body count for body count, Christians have placed themselves a long way ahead of the Muslims in the 20th century, including the 200,000 people murdered by so-called “Christians” in the former Yugoslavia just a decade ago.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Shadowcry:

Well to me it is arrogant. To you it maybe acceptable either way that is your opinion.

Just look at the organized riots in your country over cartoons that were published months ago. There is a reason they want to keep this going… they want the west to fear them. There’s hundreds of cartoons which decry Christianity and Judaism published in the Muslim world. Often at governmental levels for use as propaganda and used as scapegoats for their own failings and to keep their people mad at a common enemy.

 

[pro_universal]

Just look at the organized riots in your country over cartoons that were published months ago. There is a reason they want to keep this going… they want the west to fear them.

Yep, and look at how many muslim countries have been invaded and bombed by Western countries…“they want muslims to fear them”, right?

 

[Contarini]

CSN:

I read this on the Catholic Answers main page, and was a bit surprised at its tone.

catholic.com/library/endless_jihad.asp

Does anyone else feel that it seems out of place?

Well, there’s a long history of victims of prejudice showing prejudice.

Change “Muslim” to “Catholic” (and alter the other historical specifics accordingly) and this stuff sounds like it came right out of a 19th-century nativist playbook.

Muslims are the new Catholics.

Edwin

 

[LatinCat]

pro_universal:

Yep, and look at how many muslim countries have been invaded and bombed by Western countries…“they want muslims to fear them”, right?

Well, we have to keep the “religion of peace” under control lest they kill every Christian they can find.

 

[CSN]

Daniel Marsh:

Hi CSN, I see as the author using a hook to catch the readers interrest, nothing more.

Hi Daniel. It surprises me by its tone, however. I’ll explain more below.

 

[CSN]

ChristsSoldier:

Be Blessed,
Straight talk on a serious issue. I am given pause by those who fear discussing facts for concern of hurting feelings… Being too sensitive allowed this movement to grow IMHO.

CSN,
What is you point? Your first question was if the article was out of place, but you did not elaborate when asked too. I would also ask what in the tone of the article was surprising to you?

Your second question was about right wing fundamentalists, but seemed off topic to me. Are you equating Jihad to right wing fundamentalists? How so?

I also don’t see what the OT has to do with today’s Jihad. Your original question wasn’t about the Qur’an, it was about the article you sited.

I’m confused.

Peace,
CS

Hi CS,

I will elaborate now. This is a Catholic website. We are all supposed to be peace, love, turn the other cheek, and all that. I was taken aback particularly when I read that part that said

"Muslim apologists also rushed forward to assure the public that Islam was a peaceful religion. They disingenuously declared that the word Islam means “peace.” And they tried to portray the terrorists as a fringe group outside the mainstream of Islam.

These were lies."

There are many ways to say things, and this article seems to be saying things in an inflammatory way that is out of character with what this board is supposed to be about.

To me, the world will live or die on the ability of Christians to come to find peace with Muslims, and if things like this are said on this Catholic (!) website, then we are all sunk, man. We’re sunk.

Also, I don’t see how you can’t see the analogy between right-wing fundamentalists and muslim militants. Or the OT and passages in the Koran that call for revenge, killing, and defending God with blood.

In any event, what I’m saying is not about political correctness, or the fear of hurting feelings, or kowtowing to people who are bent on destroying you for your beliefs – those militants are clearly howling for blood, and cannot be reasoned with. But for the rest, the vast majority who just want to live in peace, we need to build bridges to them, instead of building walls, and the first place to start is in our own hearts and minds.

I’m terribly sorry to sound sanctimonious, but in addition to the surprise from reading the article, I am also surprised by people’s defense of same.

If we can’t even clean up our **** at home, we’re sunk.

 

[CSN]

Gnosis:

I have not seen proper justification of the claim that violence itself is inherent in Islam. Islam was born in a very volatile society and faced persecution and the threat of destruction from its very inception. Thus, it is no surprise that we see violence in its early history. Likewise, the Old Testament was written in a society where war was a constant, yet when the Hebrew God commands genocide or tells the Israelite men that if they rape a pagan virgin, they have to take her as his wife (giving implicit approval to the rape), there is no attempt to label Judaism or Christianity as inherently violent. The name for God in in ancient times was Yahewh Sabboath, “the God of Armies”. Sound violent to you?

Christian and Church history is splattered with blood, imperialism, the crusades, the inquisition, ect. But these are against the fundamental teachings of Christianity you say? Those who performed these acts did not seem to think so, in fact, some of the greatest travesties in human history have had so called biblical support. Slavery used to be defended by the bible! Yet we decry this as a misinterpretation of scripture, not taking it in its context ect…similarly, moderate Muslims do the same. The extremisits are misuing the Qu’ran, are not looking at its in context and deriving dangerous interpretations.

Lets not forget that Islamic Civilization was once thriving above and beyond Christendom and made numerous, valuable, discoveries that the emerging West later relied on. The Middle East was not always the hotbed of fanaticism it is today.

What we have to recognize is that the Middle East is, to an extent, behind the Western world. It is ruled by dictatorships and theocracy, for years it was dominated and abused by Western powers which have left devastating effects, it suffers from cultural impositions and uncertainty. I do not deny that the Middle East has serious progress to be made in many regards, that it is more violent and less rational, however, these are complex socio-cultural-historical issues, and I think it is a grave error to blame this on the religion of Islam.

For example, Africa is a continent plagued by civil wars and violence. Is this to suggest that Africans are inherently violent, or do other factors stimulate the surge in civil wars?

Islam does mean peace. Its a peace that is achieved through total submission to the laws of God.

See, something like this is more appropriate.

 

[CSN]

pro_universal:

I’d like to note two things that the authors of this article and that Robert Spencer have in common:

1. No credentials in the study of History
2. No credentials in the study of Islamic theology or politics.

I’m operating on an assumption that I think is well supported by the demands of rational thought: If you want to know about science, ask a scientist. If you want to know about history, ask a historian. If you want to know about Catholicism, ask a Bishop. And if you want to know about Islam, ask a Muslim scholar.

As for 1: Look for some respected western scholars on middle eastern history. If you can find one who makes a case similar to Spencer’s, please send me the citation for his book. As it stands, the only conclusion I can draw from having read “The Politically Incorrect Guide” to Islam is that it’s not only politically incorrect, it’s grossly factually incorrect as well.

As for 2: How exactly does one presume to know what Muslims preach if he or she has zero experience studying the religion of the Muslims? If I want to know what the Catholic Church teaches, I will consult the Catechism. The Equivalent in Islam is available in the works of Fiqh produced by the four schools: Shafi’i, Hanbali, Maliki, and Hanafi.

Strangely, 100 percent of the “Islam is a violent religion” articles seem to have absolutely no concept or understanding of the import of using a source that is considered authoritative by most muslims. It would be like people making statements about the Catholic Church’s teaching without having any clue or feeling the need to mention that we have Church Councils, a Catechism, and numerous works of interpretation in order to illuminate our understanding of the Bible.

The “just look at muslims today” line is disingenuous and wrong. Body count for body count, Christians have placed themselves a long way ahead of the Muslims in the 20th century, including the 200,000 people murdered by so-called “Christians” in the former Yugoslavia just a decade ago.

Or this.

 

[pnewton]

Gnosis:

Islam does mean peace. Its a peace that is achieved through total submission to the laws of God.

No it doesn’t. It means submission. I first heard this from an Islamic holy man I met in Houston.

thefreedictionary.com/Islam
Is·lam
n. **1. **A monotheistic religion characterized by the acceptance of the doctrine of submission to God and to Muhammad as the chief and last prophet of God.
**2. ****a. **The people or nations that practice Islam; the Muslim world.
**b. **The civilization developed by the Muslim world.

[Arabic 'islhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/amacr.gifm, submission, from 'aslama, to surrender, resign oneself, from Syriac 'ahttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/scaron.giflem, to make peace, surrender, derived stem of http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/scaron.giflem, to be complete; see http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/scaron.giflm in Semitic roots.]

 

[inJESUS]

pnewton:

No it doesn’t. It means submission. I first heard this from an Islamic holy man I met in Houston.

thefreedictionary.com/Islam
Is·lam
n. **1. **A monotheistic religion characterized by the acceptance of the doctrine of submission to God and to Muhammad as the chief and last prophet of God.
**2. ****a. **The people or nations that practice Islam; the Muslim world.
**b. **The civilization developed by the Muslim world.

[Arabic 'islhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/amacr.gifm

, submission, from 'aslama, to surrender, resign oneself, from Syriac 'ahttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/scaron.giflem, to make peace, surrender, derived stem of http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/scaron.giflem, to be complete; see http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/scaron.giflm in Semitic roots.]
correct

 

[inJESUS]

"Muslim apologists also rushed forward to assure the public that Islam was a peaceful religion. They disingenuously declared that the word Islam means “peace.” And they tried to portray the terrorists as a fringe group outside the mainstream of Islam.

These were lies."

correct, these were lies. Whatdo you call a lie?

There are many ways to say things, and this article seems to be saying things in an inflammatory way that is out of character with what this board is supposed to be about.

why don’t you write the same article in a “better” way and then we’ll send it to them?

To me, the world will live or die on the ability of Christians to come to find peace with Muslims,

why Christians? what about jews or buddhist? muslims have problems with anything non-muslim. Look at Christians everywhere where muslims are dominant : persecution and killing.Ok fine, you’ll say: not all muslims kill…ok, good…how can we differentate? howcan i make sure that this or that doesnt want to kill me like “I have been ordered to fight the people until they bear witness that there is no one worthy to be worshipped except Allaah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah and they establish the Salaat and give the Zakaat. If they perform such actions then their wealth and their blood has protection from me except by the Right of Islaam and their account is with Allaah .” Bukhaari

How do i make sure when their religion is not peaceful? what will happen of the million muslim terrorists? what if they dominate you and consider u a dhimma and subjugate you according to quran?what peace should WE give them when they cannot give you the same peace?

Or the OT and passages in the Koran that call for revenge, killing, and defending God with blood.

maybe because Christianity does not follow this?

But for the rest, the vast majority who just want to live in peace, we need to build bridges to them, instead of building walls, and the first place to start is in our own hearts and minds.

and what are we doing? persecuting them like they do? and how can you forget about the millions who are blood-thirsty and basing it on quran? why is it that always Christians have to do something?? our Bible told us what to do, what about THEIR book? why don’t THEY try to live in peace with humanity instead of creating terror wherever they go?

I’m terribly sorry to sound sanctimonious, but in addition to the surprise from reading the article, I am also surprised by people’s defense of same.

you can refute it…you cannot make intolerance look good can you?

If we can’t even clean up our **** at home, we’re sunk

its not OUR fault…its theirs…they should learn how to live in peace.

 

[inJESUS]

Here is a question by a muslim who doesn’t like the violence in islam and saying he doesnt want to be muslim anymore ( in later threads)

so you beleive that the death of the innocents in the trade centers was waranted?

when did they start a war with islam?

the response by another muslim:

brother were you alseep during the last 30 odd years.??? they attacked USA for the presence of its army in the holy lands. and for its continous support for israel.

those who keep on saying islam is peace please read the quran. islam is peace for those who want peace but will be rithless for thos who attack or insult it.

the prophet himself faught over 27 battles. killed many people. ordered assasination of people. oredred the illing of the whole tribe(men) of bani quraydah.

read what the prohet did when he was isnulted. there are many incidents when he either ordered or concented to the killings of those who insulted him. there are posts here. regarding this

what is exactly a threat that calls for killing? insulting mohammad or islam? having arms in muslim countries? supporting israel?not living according to islam? refusing to submit to muslim sharia? what exactly is it?? this is a response by a “moderate” muslim who is ready to kill you for anything agaisnt islam…and why not? allah insults you in quran and promise you hellfire but dare you open your mouth agaisnt mohammad? can you teach muslims to love you when their deity curses you and calls you names?

 

[pro_universal]

this is a response by a “moderate” muslim who is ready to kill you for anything agaisnt islam…and why not? allah insults you in quran and promise you hellfire but dare you open your mouth agaisnt mohammad? can you teach muslims to love you when their deity curses you and calls you names?

Come on now, let’s be honest. The western powers have done a whole lot more than make fun of Muhammad over the past 50 years.

I’d say supplying bombs to Israel (which uses them to kill scores of Palestinians and to launch “pre-emptive strikes”) and giving money and arms to the worst torturers the middle east has ever seen (Saddam Hussein and Shah Mohammed Reza Palavi) count as attacking Muslims.

Terror attacks on innocent people are absolutely immoral and disgusting, and all those who participate should be punished with the most extreme means available. I think the WTC attack was absolutely disgusting, but it’s just plain dishonest to pretend that the US and other western countries have not done any similar thing to the muslims. If you add up body for body, we have killed many, many more civilians in muslim lands than the terrorists have killed in ours.

 

[George_Waters]

pro_universal:

Come on now, let’s be honest. The western powers have done a whole lot more than make fun of Muhammad over the past 50 years.

If I may make one comment about making fun of Mohammed…

What I find most curious about the whole cartoon issue is that if images of the prophet are forbidden why are there hundreds of images of Mohammed created by Muslims throughout the centuries and displayed in museums in Muslim countries?

I have yet to get an answer from any Muslim about this.

 

[pro_universal]

George Waters:

If I may make one comment about making fun of Mohammed…

What I find most curious about the whole cartoon issue is that if images of the prophet are forbidden why are there hundreds of images of Mohammed created by Muslims throughout the centuries and displayed in museums in Muslim countries?

I have yet to get an answer from any Muslim about this.

One easy answer is that the radical groups who organized the protest do not follow traditional Islamic law. They (Wahhabi, Salafi, etc) have a new 20th century brand of the religion, which explains a lot of the so-called “muslim problems” that do not seem to be in character with the rest of the region and culture’s history.

 

[George_Waters]

pro_universal:

One easy answer is that the radical groups who organized the protest do not follow traditional Islamic law. They (Wahhabi, Salafi, etc) have a new 20th century brand of the religion, which explains a lot of the so-called “muslim problems” that do not seem to be in character with the rest of the region and culture’s history.

Fair enough. Why do you think “traditional” Muslims don’t protest the hijacking of their faith?

 

[pro_universal]

Fair enough. Why do you think “traditional” Muslims don’t protest the hijacking of their faith?

They do. Since they don’t own CNN, however, we don’t see it in the nightly news here in the US.

 

[George_Waters]

pro_universal:

They do. Since they don’t own CNN, however, we don’t see it in the nightly news here in the US.

They very well might, but it seems their response is lukewarm at best. If someone set up shop and began claiming they were the real pope and had his followers start killing people do you think the real pope and we real Catholics would meekly cry they are not following the faith or would we actively oppose their criminal actions, CNN or no?

 

[Contarini]

George Waters:

They very well might, but it seems their response is lukewarm at best. If someone set up shop and began claiming they were the real pope and had his followers start killing people do you think the real pope and we real Catholics would meekly cry they are not following the faith or would we actively oppose their criminal actions, CNN or no?

Depends on the circumstances. I have not heard that the Vatican did anything to stop the American bishops in the 19th century hijacking Catholic teaching on slavery. (Please note–my point is precisely that the Vatican *did *oppose slavery, but that the American bishops explained this away and thus condoned one of the greatest evils of human nistory.)

Here’s a better example–many people on these boards defend the Inquisition and the Crusades, while not condoning (for instance) the massacre of civilians at the taking of Jerusalem in 1099. You believe that the Crusades were in principle just, but that atrocities were committed in the process. So you don’t jump on the bandwagon of “the Crusaders were evil,” which could easily be misinterpreted by malicious people as condoning the massacre of innocents.

Please don’t tell me that this is different because it happened 900 years ago. Truth and morality remain the same, and the Catholic Church claims to be unchanging.

The plain fact is that many Muslims throughout the world think that the U.S. and Israel are even greater criminals than Osama Bin Laden. That doesn’t mean that they think Bin Laden’s tactics are consonant with Islam. It means that they think he is resorting to unjustifiable tactics in an essentially just cause–opposing the Israeli occupation of Palestine and the imperialistic American actions supporting Israel and generally interfering in the Middle East.

It is immoral and dishonest to confuse this general opposition to Israel and the U.S. with a failure to condemn the slaughter of innocent people. That it seems to me is the move anti-Islamic folks in the West are making.

There are plenty of Islamic condemnations of 9/11 on record. The problem is that many Westerners discount them because they go along with opposition to the U.S. and Israel. Essentially the argument seems to be that Muslims can’t make moral objections to the actions of those who oppose the U.S. unless they stop opposing the U.S. themselves.

To cite another analogy–this would be like saying that a citizen of the Allied nations during WWII couldn’t oppose the bombing of Dresden unless he also decided that Hitler was OK.

Edwin