Some surprising statements on the Catholic Answers website.

[pro_universal]

I won’t insult other readers’ intelligence by posting links to the thousands of reports of the atrocities in East Timor in 1999-2000, or the mass bombings in Bali in 2002 and again in 2003 which the bombers and their “clerical” leaders stated repeatedly were deliberately targeted at Western Christians in the name of Islam. Maybe your “contacts” in Indonesia have been hermits in a cave for the past 7 years.

Uh, no, diplomats from the area that I can’t name, but that’s alright.

The bombings in Bali and the targeted attacks in Indonesia have been tribal. Post some sources if you disagree.

And yes I concede that Sulawesi, the Moluccas and West Papua are legally recognised as part of the Indonesian empire after the Javanese military forcibly incorporated them

Well, you clearly understand that Indonesia is not a culturaly united place. Now can you see why my point about tribal clash versus religion is valid?

 

[Cyber_Knight]

When are you going to learn that killing the infidels doesnt bring you 72 houris? When are you going to learn that killing non muslims was the right path of Islam? These terrorists admitted they were only trying to understand what the Quran wanted from the muslims in order to follow allah’s words. This is not a tribal case, this is Islam case. The terrorists are those who follow the book and mr. pbuh accordingly. Next, are you going to tell me why the hell all Indonesian people (muslims) do not kill all non muslims there? gimme a break, muslim. If they got a chance to kill they would kill.

 

[George_Waters]

Shadowcry:

Because how would you know?

Based on its teachings and the actions of its adherents due to those teachings. I’m just asking. If you don’t want to answer my question, just let it go.

 

[Petergee]

Rodrigo Bivar:

You obviously haven’t heard of Hambali and Jemaah Islamiah. The JI network committed terrorist attacks in Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines. Hambali also helped the 20th 9/11 bomber Zacarias Moussaoui, and so was indirectly involved in the 9/11 attack.

rotten.com/library/bio/crime/terrorists/hambali/

Hasta la vista, baby,
Rodrigo

Not to mention the planned attack on Los Angeles which thank God was thwarted.

 

[Contarini]

Cyber Knight:

These terrorists admitted they were only trying to understand what the Quran wanted from the muslims in order to follow allah’s words.

So every time a Christian fundamentalist claims to be following the Bible, we should accept that their interpretation of the Bible is correct?

David Koresh quoted the Bible. Did that make him a mainstream or authentic Christian?

Edwin

 

[onesimplemind]

Contarini:

So every time a Christian fundamentalist claims to be following the Bible, we should accept that their interpretation of the Bible is correct?

David Koresh quoted the Bible. Did that make him a mainstream or authentic Christian?

Edwin

Are people who crack open a Bible and think they understand the truths of Christianity considered authentic Christians?

Notice the similarity between Koresh, McVeigh, KKK, and Islamic terrorists?

 

[inJESUS]

So every time a Christian fundamentalist claims to be following the Bible, we should accept that their interpretation of the Bible is correct?

Will a Christian find commandmants of killing in the NT? no. Here it is about killing. If killing is not what the quran asks ( though you find the word a thousand times) then it is the muslims’ responsability…they should reinterpret the final message of Allah coz obviously the “peaceful” part is not clear after 23 years of “revelations”. Isn’t it stange that millions of muslims do not undersstand the love peace in quran? A good fatwa saying : killing non-moslems is forbidden is a good start…why wasn’t it issued internationally so far? all the millions of muslims on this earth should learn about such a fatwa…still waiting for this muslim miracle .

We are trying to step beyong quran…we want acts…

 

[Contarini]

onesimplemind:

Are people who crack open a Bible and think they understand the truths of Christianity considered authentic Christians?

I’m not sure what your point is. They may or may not be “authentic” as in “orthodox” Christians. But we generally accept both that they are in some sense Christians and that they represent fringe views, not the mainstream.

The same is true of Bin Laden. It’s ridiculous to say that he isn’t a Muslim. But it’s also ridiculous to assume that because he quotes the Qur’an therefore he speaks for Islam as a whole.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Rodrigo Bivar:

First of all, please show my charge of tu quoque is a reduction ad absurdum.

I’m not sure what you mean by that. I was engaging in a reductio ad absurdum in this sense: the claim “Muslims do not respond to 9/11 in all the ways we would like, therefore they must approve of it” is an absurd claim. It is not a claim that one can consistently apply. Often we may think an act is evil without responding to it in a way that those most affected by the act find adequate. Conservative Christian responses to the killing of abortion doctors or to violence against homosexuals also fall into this category. Most of us condemn such actions, but pro-abortion or pro-homosexual folks would say that we are implicitly condoning violence because of our conservative views.

I really don’t care whether you call this a “tu quoque” or not. It’s not worth arguing about. I would have thought that the point in a “tu quoque” is that we’re all in the same boat. Whereas my point is that none of us are in this particular boat. The accusation makes no sense from the start.

I used to live in a Muslim country and I do know from speaking to people and from countless polls. What have you got?

I have a number of statements by prominent Islamic clerics, to which I have provided a link. I also have the consensus of academics who study Islam, who agree that Bin Laden represents an extremist minority within a modern, radical version of Islam (in other words, he’s a fringe of a fringe).

Are you telling me that most of the Muslims you have talked to support the killing of civilians on 9/11? Are you telling me that these “countless polls” show this? What are these polls? Who took them? How were the questions worded?

Are you saying that because the Vatican failed to stop American bishops in the 19th century perverting Christian teaching, it gives carte blanche for Muslims to support evil acts against America?

Of course I’m not saying anything of the sort. Don’t be silly.

First of all, they are wrong in thinking that defending Islam against “Western aggression” is a just cause because what Western aggression is it we’re talking about? If it means supporting Israel’s right to exist?

I’m not defending their view. I’m simply pointing out that it’s quite possible for them to hold this view without sanctioning Bin Laden’s methods.

The “Western aggression” is both U.S. support for Israel and the U.S. military presence in the Middle East. Of course, this is against the background of the Western imperialism of the early 20th century (in which Iraqi tribespeople, for instance, were used to test the effectiveness of aerial bombing in what amounted to mass terrorism on the part of the British government–there’s a recent article in the American Historical Review about this).

Most Muslims I have spoken to think OBL is doing the right thing according to the tenets of Islam.

That’s interesting and very disturbing. It’s certainly not my experience, but then I don’t live in a Muslim country. Who are these people and how did you meet them? What arguments did they use to justify OBL’s actions?

Au contraire. This ‘European Jew’ polemic is a lie and unsupported by genetic studies.

I’m not talking about genetics. I’m talking about culture. And I’m talking about Arab/Muslim perceptions.

Secondly, this ‘American soldiers in Saudi’ is a preposterous argument – how many soldiers are there in SA? And why aren’t they allowed there? Don’t you think SA being off limits is a tad bigoted? As you conceded our troops were invited there. If you have an issue take it up with the Sauds.

First of all, who said I had an issue? I’m describing what I understand to be the position of most Arabs and of most Muslims (and yes, of course I know that these two groups are not identical, which is why I name them separately). I don’t think the number of soldiers matters. And I’m not sure it’s particularly “bigoted” to want to preserve holy places free of the presence of unbelievers. I’m glad that Catholics allow Protestants into Vatican City, but if they didn’t (or, to make a better parallel, if troops from Protestant countries were not allowed into Italy), I wouldn’t call it “bigoted.” I reserve the term “bigotry” for unfair, prejudiced judgments.

 

[Contarini]

The position I am defending has two parts, each of which is quite simple:

1. It is logically consistent for Muslims to agree with OSL that Western “aggression” needs to be resisted, while disagreeing with the methods by which he does so. My historical parallels are illustrations of this approach. I’m trying to get you to admit the legitimacy of agreeing in principle with someone’s cause while condemning the methods they use.
2. I am also arguing that, based on the evidence I’ve seen, the majority of Muslims seem to take this approach. This is the part I admit is open to question. I take your personal experience very seriously, though I’d like to hear more details on just who these Muslims are you’ve talked to and just what they said. However, I take the numerous Islamic clerics who have condemned the slaughter of civilians even more seriously, since they hold positions of responsibility within the Sunni community and are likely to be well informed about the Islamic tradition. I also take American Muslims seriously–I do not reject them as somehow “inauthentic” Muslims. As a non-Muslim, I am in no position to decide what is “authentic” Islam or not. I’m trying to discern what actual Muslims think.

Rodrigo Bivar:

Sheikh al-O’Taibi, chief of al-Qaida operations in the Arabian Peninsula

I do not yet think that I know enough about the Qur’an or about its historical context to argue whether al-O’Taibi is citing this passage accurately or not. I can observe that this text does not discuss what methods may or may not be used in such “fighting.” But I don’t see what purpose is served by a non-Muslim trying to do Qur’anic exegesis. I’m interested in scholarly summaries of what the historic Islamic interpretation of this passage has been, and what the consensus of Islamic interpreters is today. If you can provide evidence to that effect, I would be very grateful. If you don’t know any more than I do on the subject, then you should stop asserting that al-Qaeda is interpreting the Qur’an in a mainstream Islamic fashion.

You know I know Islamic history more than you,

I don’t know anything of the sort. I know that you think you know something about Islamic history. I know that I don’t know much about Islamic history. I have yet to see any reason to believe your rather blustery claims about your own knowledge. You may know as little as I for all I know. But since I know I don’t know much, I’m not going to get into that argument. It is not relevant for this thread, which is about Islamic views as a whole. Perhaps Muhammad was as evil as you think he was, and later Islamic tradition has whitewashed him. In that case, the whitewashed version is more important for a discussion of Islam than the “real” Muhammad, because it is Muhammad as passed down through tradition that has had an impact on Islam.

I’m interested in evidence that either Islamic tradition as a whole or the consensus of contemporary Qur’anic scholars supports the massacre of civilians such as took place on 9/11. If you can provide such evidence, you will have a case. But for the purposes of this thread, what the historical Muhammad would have thought is totally irrelevant.

If you don’t know Arabic why do you even bring up the subject of knowledge of Arabic?

Because you are making claims about what Muslims believe. I’m challenging those claims. I’m not claiming to have extensive knowledge of my own.

I could well be wrong about what Muslims believe. It’s the badness of the arguments you and others have provided that makes me think that I could be right. Provide me with solid empirical evidence, and I’ll shut up. But don’t give me silly arguments like “my hostile, non-Muslim interpretation of the Qur’an supports OBL’s tactics, therefore OBL’s tactics are authentically Muslim.” That just won’t fly.

You keep saying that if it makes you feel better, bud. I’m not sure your opinion is backed up by the facts.

I’m not either. I’m hungry for relevant facts so that I can have a more informed opinion. But on threads like this I see mostly a bunch of irrelevancies.

Who said anything about total war?

You did. You invoked the category of “total war” to justify the bombing of Dresden.

Did you declare total war on us?

Who’s “you”?

Al-Qaeda did in effect declare total war on the U.S. by issuing a fatwa announcing a jihad. It appears that in the minds of the leaders of al-Qaeda a jihad is much like the modern Western notion of “total war.” (Whether this is faithful to Islamic tradition as a whole remains to be proven.)

You keep saying that if it makes you feel better, bud. I’m not sure your opinion is backed up by the facts. A credible poll would be nice.

Yes, it would. But in the meanwhile we have the clear judgments of a number of leading Islamic clerics. You keep ignoring this.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Rodrigo Bivar:

A few clerics here and there. I think you’re generalizing.

These “few clerics” include the leaders of radical groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas; the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia; a professor at the Islamic University of Madinah; the imam of the Al-Azhar mosque in Cairo; and a number of others.

So far from mainstream Islam supporting 9/11, even the leaders of radical terrorist groups condemned it. It went beyond what they saw as the legitimate use of force because it deliberately targeted innocent civilians.

You keep dismissing my claims as wishful thinking. But you have not produced one single Islamic cleric (outside al-Qaeda itself) who supports your view that 9/11 was in keeping with mainstream Islam. So who is making empty assertions?

What Islamic scholars (outside al-Qaeda itself) have spoken in support of 9/11? If you can’t name at least a few mainstream figures, then you have no case whatsoever. I don’t care what you think the Qur’an says. I care what the people who speak for Islam think the Qur’an says.

I think you should look at the polls done soon after 9/11.

I’m happy to. Can you give me a link?

I really don’t know what you’re trying to say as your syllogism is rather garbled. Please try again.

See my point no. 1 at the beginning of the preceding post.

No. I am saying that either Muslims believe OBL did the right thing or they don’t. So which is it?

The prominent Muslims cited on the CAIR web page to which I linked (the most relevant portion is also available here) certainly think that he did the wrong thing.

What prominent Islamic scholars can you cite who think he was right?

Edwin

 

[Petergee]

pro_universal:

The bombings in Bali and the targeted attacks in Indonesia have been tribal.

Surely you can’t be serious. The Bali bombers stated openly and under oath in court that they targeted certain places because they knew there would be hundreds of Christian westerners there.

If, as you claim, the Indonesian Islamic terrorists bombed the Australian embassy simply because Aussies are a different “tribe”, then why haven’t they bombed, say, the Saudi Arabian embassy?

 

[pro_universal]

Petergee:

Surely you can’t be serious. The Bali bombers stated openly and under oath in court that they targeted certain places because they knew there would be hundreds of Christian westerners there.

If, as you claim, the Indonesian Islamic terrorists bombed the Australian embassy simply because Aussies are a different “tribe”, then why haven’t they bombed, say, the Saudi Arabian embassy?

For the same reason that Al Qaeda doesn’t seek out emissaries of Luxembourg: It’s not relevant to and especially not opposed to their politics.

 

[Petergee]

pro_universal:

For the same reason that Al Qaeda doesn’t seek out emissaries of Luxembourg: It’s not relevant to and especially not opposed to their politics.

So is it political, or is it tribal? Make up your mind.
And perhaps you can explain why Al-Quaeda bombed that French ship. Or maybe instead of desperately grasping for alternative motives that don’t make sense, look at the one common factor in all these attacks which is staring you in the face: it’s Moslems attacking Christians.

And no doubt we’ll get an indignant protest from the Luxembourgeois when they find out you accused them of not being opposed to Al-Quaeda’s politics.

 

[pro_universal]

Petergee:

So is it political, or is it tribal? Make up your mind.
And perhaps you can explain why Al-Quaeda bombed that French ship. Or maybe instead of desperately grasping for alternative motives that don’t make sense, look at the one common factor in all these attacks which is staring you in the face: it’s Moslems attacking Christians.

And no doubt we’ll get an indignant protest from the Luxembourgeois when they find out you accused them of not being opposed to Al-Quaeda’s politics.

First of all, I didn’t say Luxembourg supported terrorism, I said they’re irrelevant to terrorism (except insofar as the shady finances work there might possibly aid terrorists in a roundabout way).

Your question of “is it political or tribal?” implies an either-or situation that does not exist. Tribal problems are political problems in places where tribes matter. Indonesia and most of Southeast asia are such places.

Your idea of a “common factor” of Islam in world conflicts is one of those ubiquitous one word answers that also happens to be shockingly wrong. My statement that there all alternative motives in the conflicts in southeast asia isn’t grasping at straws, it’s stating the obvious…to blame it on Islam when the largest muslim organization in the world (the Nahdatul Ulama) sits in Indonesia and takes no role in the violence is silly.

I really find it baffling that, across totally different cultures and political situations, some people automatically presume that Islam is the cause of any conflict in which muslims are involved, whereas there is the exact opposite presumption where Christians are involved.

 

[Petergee]

pro_universal:

First of all, I didn’t say Luxembourg supported terrorism, I said they’re irrelevant to terrorism

No, you said Luxembourg is

especially not opposed to their politics

Your idea of a “common factor” of Islam in world conflicts is one of those ubiquitous one word answers that also happens to be shockingly wrong. My statement that there all alternative motives in the conflicts in southeast asia isn’t grasping at straws, it’s stating the obvious…to blame it on Islam when the largest muslim organization in the world (the Nahdatul Ulama) sits in Indonesia and takes no role in the violence is silly.

I really find it baffling that, across totally different cultures and political situations, some people automatically presume that Islam is the cause of any conflict in which muslims are involved, whereas there is the exact opposite presumption where Christians are involved.

I love how when anyone points out the elephant in the lounge room, that is that Islam is the one common factor uniting a huge number of terrorist attacks around the world in widely disparate cultures, they are accused of saying that ALL Moslems are terrorists. Sorry, your lame attempt to portray me as a religious bigot won’t wash.

Of course most Moslems are peaceful. And yes, if Christianity was the one common factor uniting a vast number of terrorist attacks around the world in many different cultures and political situations, of course I would point out that Christianity was the common factor, even if the largest Christian organisation in the world took no role in the violence. I find it baffling that you think I would have the opposite presumption.

 

[pro_universal]

Petergee:

No, you said Luxembourg is .

Perhaps you could reread my post and then quote to me the language you think indicates this. I’m looking now, and I don’t see it.

Petergee:

I love how when anyone points out the elephant in the lounge room, that is that Islam is the one common factor uniting a huge number of terrorist attacks around the world in widely disparate cultures, they are accused of saying that ALL Moslems are terrorists. Sorry, your lame attempt to portray me as a religious bigot won’t wash.

The problem is that it’s not the elephant in the room in Indonesia and most of Southeast Asia. The local politics are what matter, which is why you don’t see very high levels of cooperation between international terrorists and the muslim tribesmen throughout the region. They’re not really interested in what goes on in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, or Palestine…they’re asian.

Petergee:

Of course most Moslems are peaceful. And yes, if Christianity was the one common factor uniting a vast number of terrorist attacks around the world in many different cultures and political situations, of course I would point out that Christianity was the common factor, even if the largest Christian organisation in the world took no role in the violence. I find it baffling that you think I would have the opposite presumption.

That really makes no sense. If this were a rule, I would have to conspicuously point out the “elephant in the room” of Catholicism in Latin American dictatorships and revolutionies. After all, most of Latin America is Catholic…does that mean Catholic teaching is a “common denominator” that unites Drug Smuggling, Rebellion, and brutal dictatorships in South America?

 

[Petergee]

pro_universal:

Perhaps you could reread my post and then quote to me the language you think indicates this. I’m looking now, and I don’t see it.

I give up. I do nothing but cut and paste your exact words, and you accuse me of making it up, even though your words are right there in front of you in black and yellow. Or are you claiming that somebody else posted under your name on the 3rd of April?

The problem is that it’s not the elephant in the room in Indonesia and most of Southeast Asia. The local politics are what matter, which is why you don’t see very high levels of cooperation between international terrorists and the muslim tribesmen throughout the region. They’re not really interested in what goes on in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, or Palestine…they’re asian.

I’m pretty sure that if you get out your atlas you will find that all three of those countries are in Asia.

That really makes no sense. If this were a rule, I would have to conspicuously point out the “elephant in the room” of Catholicism in Latin American dictatorships and revolutionies. After all, most of Latin America is Catholic…does that mean Catholic teaching is a “common denominator” that unites Drug Smuggling, Rebellion, and brutal dictatorships in South America?

IF Catholics were just about the ONLY people in the world imposing brutal dictatorship and trafficking drugs, then yes of course I would say “Catholicism is the common denominator in dictatorship and drug trafficking”. But they’re not.
Btw if you had read the news for the past 20 years or so you’d know that “brutal dictatorships” have been rarer in Latin America than just about anywhere else in the world. And that drug smuggling is a bigger problem in Moslem and Buddhist countries in Asia than in Latin America. And if you ARE in a “brutal dictatorship”, there’s nothing wrong with “rebellion” against it when nonviolent methods have failed.

 

[pro_universal]

Petergee:

I give up. I do nothing but cut and paste your exact words, and you accuse me of making it up, even though your words are right there in front of you in black and yellow. Or are you claiming that somebody else posted under your name on the 3rd of April?

Uh, no. I think I see your error now. You think “politics” means “terrorism.” It doesn’t. Al Qaeda, in addition to killing civilians, also has a political agenda: namely, to have the US and its allies out of the Arabian peninsula. Luxembourg has nothing to do with that.

Petergee:

I’m pretty sure that if you get out your atlas you will find that all three of those countries are in Asia.

Yes, I used Asian the way the word is used to apply generally to East-Asian cultures in America. Forgive me if you are not American and did not understand my use of the word. Now it is clear.

Petergee:

IF Catholics were just about the ONLY people in the world imposing brutal dictatorship and trafficking drugs, then yes of course I would say “Catholicism is the common denominator in dictatorship and drug trafficking”. But they’re not.
Btw if you had read the news for the past 20 years or so you’d know that “brutal dictatorships” have been rarer in Latin America than just about anywhere else in the world. And that drug smuggling is a bigger problem in Moslem and Buddhist countries in Asia than in Latin America. And if you ARE in a “brutal dictatorship”, there’s nothing wrong with “rebellion” against it when nonviolent methods have failed.

Okay, but Muslims aren’t the only people in the world with extremist groups and terrorists. So why do we acknowledge the “elephant in the room” of religion with Islam, and not with similarly troubled communities like South America, Eastern Europe, Central Africa, etc? You yourself admit that smuggling is a big problem in Buddhist countries also…does that destroy the commonality there?

By your own standard, in order to say “islam is the problem or the common link between all terrorism”, Muslims would have to be about the only people in the world who engage in terrorism. Since they are not (by a long stretch) the only such people, I don’t see how you can possibly maintain this position.