Top Muslim scholars announce boycott of dialogue with Vatican

[1holycatholic]

Top Muslim scholars announce boycott of dialogue with Vatican
Top Muslim academics in Egypt have announced they are suspending all dialogue with the Vatican to protest Pope Benedict XVI’s remarks about anti-Christian violence in Egypt.

The decision of Sheik Ahmad el-Tayeb, president of al-Azhar University in Cairo, and members of the Islamic Research Academy was reported by the website Ahram Online, a site devoted to covering news of interest to Muslims in the Middle East.
…

 

[andyandely1997]

The truth can hurt, but it needs to be spoken at all times.

 

[Ed_Normile]

Does anyone really find this shocking?, even though it comes from a “religion of peace” such as Islam, it seems to fit very well with their methods and actions as exhibited throughout history. At least they have not called for a Fatwa against the Pope yet, this may come some day as they are also known for this decree for any who speak against their views or disagree with their policies.

ed

 

[johnr55]

I’m surprised that Agca was the only one after a Pope. Expect terrorist attacks against the Vatican.

 

[Arch_Angel]

“religion of peace”

Islam means “submission” to Allah, it does not mean “peace”.

Anyway I’m not surprised, but it is really unfortunate actually. Its like a boy who gets his feelings hurt and goes to his room and locks the door. We need more dialogue with Muslims on hard subjects… and we need tolerance and patience within dialogue so as not to take every word so personally, leading to nasty arguments.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Islam means “submission” to Allah, it does not mean “peace”.

Anyway I’m not surprised, but it is really unfortunate actually. Its like a boy who gets his feelings hurt and goes to his room and locks the door. We need more dialogue with Muslims on hard subjects… and we need tolerance and patience within dialogue so as not to take every word so personally, leading to nasty arguments.

Besides, this example of pique is from one group of Egyptians.

 

[chevalier]

Anyway I’m not surprised, but it is really unfortunate actually. Its like a boy who gets his feelings hurt and goes to his room and locks the door. We need more dialogue with Muslims on hard subjects… and we need tolerance and patience within dialogue so as not to take every word so personally, leading to nasty arguments.

I don’t have all facts, as in what exactly those Muslim academics thought and why and which exactly words had which effect etc., but on the general impression from the limited information we’re getting it really looks like that boy reflex you mention.

Unless they’re taking offence specifically at “discrimination” and understanding it in purely legal terms as opposed to what kind of life the Copts are facing.

 

[Not_Sure_1]

People always hate the man that speaks the truth.

 

[Rebax]

Islam means “submission” to Allah, it does not mean “peace”.

Anyway I’m not surprised, but it is really unfortunate actually. Its like a boy who gets his feelings hurt and goes to his room and locks the door. We need more dialogue with Muslims on hard subjects… and we need tolerance and patience within dialogue so as not to take every word so personally, leading to nasty arguments.

Islam, a name given by Allah to this religion (Quran 5:4), is an Arabic word which literally means submission, obedience and peace. ISLAM is derived from the Arabic root “SALEMA” that means peace, purity, submission and obedience. So ‘Islam’ would mean the path of those who are obedient to Allah and who establish peace with Him and His creatures and are fully submitting to His will. Islam follower are called Muslims.

When an arab mets an arab, he usually says ‘‘Salam’’ which means (Peace) and the words root comes from ‘‘Salema’’.

Ontopic:
I see lots of people blame the whole muslim unit for what few ‘‘Top scholars’’ said, but okay fine.

Have any of you read history? Politic matters in middle-east? What do you think this hatred came from? Anyone who looks back in history, sees what have been done will understand this and there might be other issues that this article didn’t bring up like what the real problem of this was, hmm hmm.

To look back at the early islamic empire, at the time of the Umayyad caliphate, the people of the covenant, Christians, Zoroastrians, Jews, and Sabians, all enjoyed degree of tolerance that we do not find even today in Christian countries. They were free to practice the rituals of their religion and their churches and temples were preserved. They enjoyed autonomy in that they were subject to the religious laws of the scholars and judges.

These just relations between Muslims and people of other faiths were not due to mere politics played by Muslim rulers, but rather they were a direct result of the teachings of the religion of Islam, one which preaches that people of other religions be free to practice their own faith, only accepting the guidance offered by Islam by their own choice. God says in the Quran:

“There is no compulsion in religion…” (Quran 2:256)

Not only does Islam demand their freedom to practice religion, but also that they be treated justly as any other fellow human. Warning against any abuse of non-Muslims in an Islamic society, the Prophet stated:

“Beware! Whoever is cruel and hard on a non-Muslim minority, curtails their rights, burdens them with more than they can bear, or takes anything from them against their free will; I (Prophet Muhammad) will complain against the person on the Day of Judgment.” (Abu Dawud)

Peace

 

[LtTony]

I see lots of people blame the whole muslim unit for what few ‘‘Top scholars’’ said, but okay fine.

Do you disagree with this characterization from the linked news story?:

“Top Muslim academics in Egypt…”

Is al-Azhar University in Cairo not a major center of Islamic thought?

I appreciate what you are saying; there is definitely an element of truth to it. But the fact is muslims do look to scholars, especially the 4 major schools, for interpretation of the Koran and context for hadith.
So I disagree with the implication that scholars – particular those mentioned in the story – don’t have significant influence.

Politic matters in middle-east? What do you think this hatred came from?

Again, I recognize where you’re coming from. Problem is, militant Islamists spout religion when they launch attacks. Can’t say as I blame them, as poltics is accepted part of Islam. That’s a major, major problem for relations with the West.

 

[Rebax]

It is narrated by Ibn 'Umar that a woman was found killed in one of these battles; so the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) forbade the killing of women and children. (Sahih Al Bukhari Chapter : Prohibition of killing women and children in war.)

Narated By Rabah ibn Rabi’ : When we were with the Apostle of Allah (pbuh) on an expedition, he saw some people collected together over something and sent a man and said: See, what are these people collected around? He then came and said: They are round a woman who has been killed. He said: This is not one with whom fighting should have taken place. Khalid ibn al-Walid was in charge of the van; so he sent a man and said: Tell Khalid not to kill a woman or a hired servant. (Sunan Abu Dawood)

Ibn `Umar (May Allah bepleased with them) reported: Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said, “A believer continues to guard his Faith (and thus hopes for Allah’s Mercy) so long as he does not shed blood unjustly”.
[Al-Bukhari].

Peace.

 

[CatholicGuy22]

These guys dont speak for all of Islam so we shouldnt be to hard the whole faith.

 

[Rebax]

Top Muslim scholars announce boycott of dialogue with Vatican
Top Muslim academics in Egypt have announced they are suspending all dialogue with the Vatican to protest Pope Benedict XVI’s remarks about anti-Christian violence in Egypt.

The decision of Sheik Ahmad el-Tayeb, president of al-Azhar University in Cairo, and members of the Islamic Research Academy was reported by the website Ahram Online, a site devoted to covering news of interest to Muslims in the Middle East.
…

Al-Azhar, the chief centre of Sunni Muslim learning, suspended on Thursday its ties with the Vatican, accusing the pope of attacking Islam, but the Holy See says it wants to continue its bi-annual meetings with the Egypt-based institute.

“The freeze was prompted by the repeated attacks on Islam by Pope Benedict XVI of the Vatican. The Pope has reiterated that Muslims oppress non-Muslims who are living with them in the Middle East,” said an Al-Azhar statement carried by the official Mena news agency.

Representatives of Al-Azhar and the Vatican meet twice yearly to discuss mutual cooperation, and those gatherings will now be suspended indefinitely, Al-Azhar said.

In a swift response, the Vatican said it wanted the talks to continue.

“The pontifical council for inter-religious dialogue’s line of openness and desire to dialogue is unchanged,” said Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi.

Lombardi added that the council was “in the process of gathering together the necessary information in order to understand the situation well.”

An advisor to Al-Azhar grand imam Sheikh Ahmed al-Tayyeb criticised remarks by the pontiff as interference in internal affairs.

“The pope has repeatedly alleged that non-Muslims are being persecuted in Muslim countries in the Middle East region, which is far from the truth and is an unacceptable interference in the internal affairs of Islamic countries,” Sheikh Mahmud Azab said in remarks carried by MENA.

The decision to suspend the dialogue came after an extraordinary meeting of Al-Azhar’s Islamic Research Academy, chaired by Sheikh Ahmed.

The current spat developed after a suicide bomber blew himself up outside a Coptic church in Egypt’s Mediterranean port of Alexandria, killing 21 people and wounding dozens as they came out of a New Year’s Eve mass.

Pope Benedict has repeatedly expressed his solidarity with the Copts and called on world leaders to protect them.

He said the attack was “yet another sign of the urgent need for the governments of the region to adopt … effective measures for the protection of religious minorities”.

The remarks prompted Cairo to recall its envoy to the Vatican on January 11.

“Egypt will not allow any non-Egyptian faction to interfere in its internal affairs under any pretext,” the foreign ministry said. “The Coptic question is specifically an internal Egyptian affair.”

A day after the bombing, Sheikh Ahmed himself said: “I disagree with the pope’s view, and I ask why did the pope not call for the protection of Muslims when they were subjected to killings in Iraq?”

The Vatican immediately rejected the accusation, saying the head of the Roman Catholic Church had shown solidarity with the Coptic community as well as concern for the consequences of the violence for the Christian and Muslim population.

“Therefore we cannot see how the pope’s approach to bring everybody to accept non-violence can be considered meddling,” Lombardi said.

The article that the threadstarter posted darken this.

Peace.

 

[1holycatholic]

God says in the Quran:

God says nothing in the Quran.

“There is no compulsion in religion…” (Quran 2:256)

The exception being Islam, both historically and contemporarily.

Not only does Islam demand their freedom to practice religion, but also that they be treated justly as any other fellow human. Warning against any abuse of non-Muslims in an Islamic society, the Prophet stated:

“Beware! Whoever is cruel and hard on a non-Muslim minority, curtails their rights, burdens them with more than they can bear, or takes anything from them against their free will; I (Prophet Muhammad) will complain against the person on the Day of Judgment.” (Abu Dawud)

Again, that’s simply not the case, and Mohammed is not a prophet.

P. S. quran.com/2/106 Later passages in the Quran overrule conflicting earlier passages. That’s why the “no compulsion” argument is moot in the light of the many later passages to the contrary.

 

[1holycatholic]

Allah says in the Quran:

{Because of that We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone killed a person not in retaliation of murder, or (and) to spread mischief in the land - it would be as if he killed all mankind, and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind. And indeed, there came to them Our Messengers with clear proofs, evidences, and signs, even then after that many of them continued to exceed the limits (e.g. by doing oppression unjustly and exceeding beyond the limits set by Allâh by committing the major sins) in the land!.} 5 : 32]

Protestant “a” claims Bible verse “x” says “y”…
Protestant “b” claims Bible verse “x” says “z”…

Muslim “a” claims Quran verse “x” says “y”…
Muslim “b” claims Quran verse “x” says “z”…

It’s amazing how similar Islamic and Protestant Christian hermeneutics are.

 

[LtTony]

And peace to you Rebax.

Do you disagree with this characterization from the linked news story?:

“Top Muslim academics in Egypt…”

Is al-Azhar University in Cairo not a major center of Islamic thought?

I appreciate what you are saying; there is definitely an element of truth to it. But the fact is muslims do look to scholars, especially the 4 major schools, for interpretation of the Koran and context for hadith.
So I disagree with the implication that scholars – particular those mentioned in the story – don’t have significant influence.

I repeat my questions.

Hello my friend, thanks for replying. To answer your question there need to be a lot of understanding of first of all… .

Yes. By everyone.

Politics does exist in Islaam. It is deep and profound.

Agree.

Unfortunately, many of the politicians today are unaware of Islamic politics. Politics today consists of deception, lying, flattery, and hypocrisy in most cases. However, Islamic politics is contrary to this. Islamic politics means: Good planning and management.

Christianity teaches this also… regarding all relationships.

“Good planning management” sounds good in theory, but the “Islamic politics” we see today is something else. Other politicians aren’t much better, generally speaking.

Today you hear about certain groups that call themselves the Islamic Group aligning themselves with Communists, secularists, and nationalists in supporting the oppressor over the oppressed. Why is this? It is due to their lack of understanding the Religion.

Those people would say it is more than a mere claim. They point to the Koran and hadith to support their views, and there is a fair number of scholars and imams that agree with them.

like the Israel-Palestine conflict. Seeing the history and see what the Israelis/zionists did to the arabs you start to wonder why no one actually say something about they attack in the name of religion.

It always – and I mean ALWAYS – gets back to Israel. Each side has legitimate arguments. No need to mix religion into it.

I find it odd that I have not found a single muslim on the internet that does not break it down to Israelis versus muslims. Israelis vs. Palestinian nationalists would be more appropriate.

To not speak about christian who had lots of power in Europe for hundred of years ago. Also keep in mind what George Bush said when he attacked Iraq, do you remember what they said they attacked Iraq for? What Bush said on the interview?

That is an internet myth spread my radical Islamists, and you fell for it.

Bush was’nt “quoted” at all. It wasn’t recorded on paper, disk, tape, anything. Other than someone’s recollection that got translated at least three times. It is hearsay – at best.
Even if Bush did say it – and that’s possible – the people at the meeting didn’t leave with the same understanding the hateful poster is presenting.

"Before you jump to any conclusions, remember that you are reading a translation of a translation of a translation. Mahmoud Abas does not speak English. Bush does not speak Arabic. If Bush said these words, or something like them, Abas heard them from a translator. Then Abas repeated them, as he remembered them a couple of weeks later, in Arabic. Some unknown person wrote down what he thought he heard Abas say. Then Regular, or someone at Ha’aretz, translated them back into English-or perhaps first into Hebrew and then into English. "

commondreams.org/views03/0630-04.htm

timesonline.co.uk/article/0,11069-1815665,00.html

“It was really a figure of speech (by Bush). We felt he was saying that he had a mission, a commitment, his faith in God would inspire him … rather than a metaphysical whisper in his ear,” he said.

commondreams.org/headlines05/1007-03.htm

economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3502861

 

[LtTony]

To bring up few examples from Hadith/ Quran

“Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not do aggression, for Allah loves not the aggressors. Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors. And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrongdoers.” (Al-Baqarah 190-194)

Near as I can tell there is a striking difference in the early and late accounts of Mohammad, and surahs. Early, when he was weak, he speaks with as lot of mercy. Later, when he has an army, he was less forgiving.

As an ex-muslim friend of mine posted once: "Early in Muhammad’s career. His views changed quite a bit as he got older, especially post-Hijrah, and especially once he achieved political power. You would agree that at this time of this revelation, Muhammad had no political power at all, yes? His preaching at this time was still largely apolitical and was still more of a personal faith.

"Which gets us back to the original issue, the traditional scholars review later ayat as well. Some would even argue they lean more heavily on the older Muhammad after he became the political and military leader of a nascent empire. “Moderates” tend to always focus his early days when he was more of a prophet.

“Islam would be quite different if everyone just believed the early revelations, and discounted the later ones.”

The use of Force is allowed in Islam. However, Islam lays down clear guidelines as to how warfare is carried out. It is not for anyone to take the law into their own hands.

But they do. Frequently.
Whether they are rightly following Mohammad is a serious problem for muslims.

 

[LtTony]

Visiting the forum since I posted the above, Rebax chose not to reply. I find that so typical of muslim posters. Maybe it is because Rebax says that it is OK to lie to keep peace.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7662929&postcount=137

I think it also unfortunate that Rebax has been banned. I don’t know the circumstances, but too many of our muslim friends meet that end. I would like them here at almost all costs, because on a non-muslim forum is about the only place we can interact with them. Kuffar are few and far between on muslim boards. I don’t want us to look remotely close to how those muslim boards operate.

 

[nhylan]

Protestant “a” claims Bible verse “x” says “y”…
Protestant “b” claims Bible verse “x” says “z”…

Muslim “a” claims Quran verse “x” says “y”…
Muslim “b” claims Quran verse “x” says “z”…

It’s amazing how similar Islamic and Protestant Christian hermeneutics are.

That’s pretty uncharitable don’t you think? Particularly given your opinion of Islam.

 

[1holycatholic]

That’s pretty uncharitable don’t you think? Particularly given your opinion of Islam.

It’s not uncharitable. The similarity of Protestantism and Islam as a result of Islam’s appropriation of elements of Catholicism and Protestantism’s elimination of elements of Catholicism. If you are uncomfortable with that then you should examine why you don’t hold the apostolic faith of the Catholic Church established by Christ.