Muslims Extend Olive Branch to Pope, Christians
Thursday, October 11, 2007 at 10:37PM 138 Muslim leaders, politicians and scholars from around the world wrote an open letter to Pope Benedict XVI on the one year anniversary of his controversial remarks quoting a 14th century Byzantine emperor who denounced Mohammed’s attempt to spread religion by the sword as incompatible with the nature of God.
Pope Benedict invited a large Muslim envoy to the Vatican a month following his controversial quotation denouncing religion and violence. Many overlooked the warm meeting between the world's top Christian leader and top Muslim leaders who agreed that religion is incompatible with violence.
This unprecedented open letter, An Open Letter and Call from Muslim Religious Leaders, addresses all Christians, starting with the Pope and ending in the ordinary layperson. It aims to bridge the gap between Muslims and Christians. It calls for unity among the religions that have the ability to bring peace to the world and essentially worship the same God. Christians, Jews and Muslims all share the same father in faith, Abraham. Here are some excerpts of this astounding olive branch:
Muslims and Christians together make up well over half of the world’s population. Without peace and justice between these two religious communities, there can be no meaningful peace in the world. The future of the world depends on peace between Muslims and Christians.
The basis for this peace and understanding already exists. It is part of the very foundational principles of both faiths: love of the One God, and love of the neighbour. These principles are found over and over again in the sacred texts of Islam and Christianity. The Unity of God, the necessity of love for Him, and the necessity of love of the neighbour is thus the common ground between Islam and Christianity.
…..justice and freedom of religion are a crucial part of love of the neighbour. Thus in obedience to the Holy Qur’an, we as Muslims invite Christians to come together with us on the basis of what is common to us, which is also what is most essential to our faith and practice: the Two Commandments of love.
As Muslims, we say to Christians that we are not against them and that Islam is not against them — so long as they do not wage war against Muslims on account of their religion, oppress them and drive them out of their homes.
Finally, as Muslims, and in obedience to the Holy Qur’an, we ask Christians to come together with us on the common essentials of our two religions … that we shall worship none but God, and that we shall ascribe no partner unto Him, and that none of us shall take others for lords beside God … (Aal ‘Imran , 3:64).
Let this common ground be the basis of all future interfaith dialogue between us, for our common ground is that on which hangs all the Law and the Prophets (Matthew 22:40).
Finding common ground between Muslims and Christians is not simply a matter for polite ecumenical dialogue between selected religious leaders. Christianity and Islam are the largest and second largest religions in the world and in history. Christians and Muslims reportedly make up over a third and over a fifth of humanity respectively. Together they make up more than 55% of the world’s population, making the relationship between these two religious communities the most important factor in contributing to meaningful peace around the world. If Muslims and Christians are not at peace, the world cannot be at peace. With the terrible weaponry of the modern world; with Muslims and Christians intertwined everywhere as never before, no side can unilaterally win a conflict between more than half of the world’s inhabitants. Thus our common future is at stake.
The very survival of the world itself is perhaps at stake. And to those who nevertheless relish conflict and destruction for their own sake or reckon that ultimately they stand to gain through them, we say that our very eternal souls are all also at stake if we fail to sincerely make every effort to make peace and come together in harmony. God says in the Holy Qur’an: Lo! God enjoineth justice and kindness, and giving to kinsfolk, and forbiddeth lewdness and abomination and wickedness. He exhorteth you in order that ye may take heed (Al Nahl, 16:90). Jesus Christ said: Blessed are the peacemakers ….(Matthew 5:9), and also: For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world and loses his soul? (Matthew 16:26).
So let our differences not cause hatred and strife between us. Let us vie with each other only in righteousness and good works. Let us respect each other, be fair, just and kind to another and live in sincere peace, harmony and mutual goodwill.
Wow. My suggestion is that we let these good Muslims frame the debate with Christians and peace loving people, not Osama bin Laden or Ayman al-Zawahiri. A fatal mistake we non-Muslims make is to continually elevate terrorists to the level of religious leaders by engaging in their taunt of "jihad" and ignoring that there are indeed both apostates and faithful within Islam. A friend in the comment section of another post said this:
"...until OBL stops calling it jihad I will call them jihadis."
I propose we let these good Muslims who want to bridge the gap define Islam. Allowing Osama Bin Laden to define terrorism as “jihad” is letting the inmates run the asylum, the enemy call the shots and the apostates define theology. I would no more let David Koresh or Jim Jones define Christianity for me than Muslims want OBL defining Islam for them.
Since 2001 we've wondered where the good, peaceful Muslims were and why they weren't speaking out against terrorism in the name of their religion. In the past year, movements within Islam have emerged showing that most Muslims reject the heretics who kill in the name of Allah. This open letter is yet another step toward peace which we should appreciate and accept rather than dismissing. The consequences of doing so are simply too damning.
RELATED POSTS:
- Muslims Say of Terrorism: ‘This Is Not Us’
- Muslim Congressman Regrets Bush/Hitler Comparison, Talks Counterinsurgency
- Iraqis Unite at Historic Promise of the People Conference
Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/1307607
Amy Proctor
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (58)
uh, Amy? don't you realize that right there, in your quote of that letter, the Muslim leaders just told you that if you dump Jesus they will (or might) be your friend.... how gracious. (quote following)
Finally, as Muslims, and in obedience to the Holy Qur’an, we ask Christians to come together with us on the common essentials of our two religions … that we shall worship none but God, and that we shall ascribe no partner unto Him, and that none of us shall take others for lords beside God … (Aal ‘Imran , 3:64).
Mark, you misinterpret the quote. Maybe I should have posted the entire letter but it was just too long.
The letter writer described that both Christians and Muslims are faithful to the same God and don't adulterate or worship other gods. Previously it was discussed that while Muslims and Christians have differences, we both share the same God and that we can be unified.
you misunderstand Islam Amy, the absolute worst blasphemy according to the Quran is to ascribe any equal, or to place anything on the same level, so to speak, as Allah. and Muslim scholars have been saying that is what us Christians do, calling Jesus tha son of God is absolutely unacceptable to even a very moderate Muslim. this shirk is the most heinous crime in Islam.
Lying to an infidel, however, is no crime at all.
here's a good copy of the Quran to peruse:
http://www.oneummah.net/quran/quran.html
If you like a basic outline of the quran, bob spencer is working on one here: http://www.jihadwatch.org/articles/bloggingtheq.php
I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by Professor Theodore Khoury (Münster) of part of the dialogue carried on - perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara - by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both.[1] It was presumably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than those of his Persian interlocutor.[2] The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Qur'an, and deals especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship between - as they were called - three "Laws" or "rules of life": the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Qur'an. It is not my intention to discuss this question in the present lecture; here I would like to discuss only one point - itself rather marginal to the dialogue as a whole - which, in the context of the issue of "faith and reason", I found interesting and which can serve as the starting-point for my reflections on this issue. ( Source from above post-link, "APOSTOLIC JOURNEY OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI
TO MÜNCHEN, ALTÖTTING AND REGENSBURG
(SEPTEMBER 9-14, 2006)"
Actually Amy,
note: "itself rather marginal to the dialogue as a whole "
and: "That was in 1959, in the days of the old university" in first graph at link you provided. point: Much Istanbul- research as been done since the 1950s.
Threrefore, below would be what is considered the current information, gathered from the archives at Constantinople/Istanbul national archives, and taught at major research institutes today that have world credibility. The subject is not Islam at first, but a multi-religo ( including Christians’ fighting in the top ranks of these conquering groups) before Islam is officially adopted.
Osmanoğullari had no official religion when the dynasty began its annexation of Anatolia in c. 1320s. The Oghuz groups were more indigenous, and multi-relgio, and not Islamic. When Orhan (1324 -1362 ) capture of Bursa, there were no Islamic precepts or official offices under this group. Even during Bayezid I 1389-1402 Son of Murad I, Islam was not the official religion of the Osmanoğullari. 1402 July: In the battle of Ankara against Timur ( Eng. Tamerlane) Lenk, Bayezid's forces are defeated. This began a regional and pan-Anatolian civil war. Only after this period, researches’ at the top- US and world institutions that are in the historical field of Islam, by recorded prime-source research, understand Islam did not make its appearance as an official religion until after this Anatolian civil war. It was Mehmed I Çelebi (1413-1421 )(nicknamed Kirisci, "the Executioner") (died May 26, 1421) a.k.a. in the west as Mehmed “the conqueror” who actually allowed the adoption of mono-religion into the multi-ethnic and multi-religio fold of the Osmanoğullari. Then, and only then, has Islam been an official religion for the Ottoman Empire ( nominally called the Turkish Empire, incorrectly in foreign sources). Research has shown that foreign commenter’s, such as sources the Pope has used, and other institutions have used, demonstrate the discommunication often present in historical sources. Were there Muslims before Mehmed I in the Ottoman Armies? Yes, but the main generals were actually captured Christians, turned loyal to the multi-bands of Anatolian imperialists. If you need something closer to the actual “ point” of conversions -- 1413 Mehmed Celebi ends up winning the internecine strife; Ottoman realm reunited, and this was the time when Islam was officially adopted. However, the main language in the Ottoman government was Persian- indigenous/common- language with little Arabic if any at that time. It changed over the course of time, when Selim “ the Grim” conquered in 1501 the traditional Islamic regions ( Egypt, much of the lower ‘east’ middle east) and annexed them into the Empire of the Ottoman. Then, proper Arabic made an impact as the official language.
The point being, the conquest of Constantinople may not be what it was thought to be in earlier research – Islam vs. Christian. It appears that many Christians were in fact in the top ranks of the Ottoman forces that conquered Constantinople.
Mehmet II (Muhammad the Conqueror), b.1429–81d., Ottoman sultan (1444-1446 and 1451–1481).
correction: Mehmed I Çelebi was not called also "the Conqueror," as I'd written; it was actually Mehmet II's (Muhammad the Conqueror) nic., b.1429–81d., Ottoman sultan (1444-1446 and 1451–1481), the leader of the Ottomans that is accredited with conquering Constantinople. Mehmed I Çelebi after the internecine strife war is accredited with uniting the Ottoman groups and making Islam the official religion of the Ottomans, as was written.
It would finally be in Süleyman's (b.1520-d.1566) reign that there were no more Christian sipahis allowed in military and gov- positions -- or Christian Balkin Visers. From here on, it was more sticky Islamic from pressure of the traditional Islam lands placing pressure on the Caliphate. Oddly, this is when the Ottoman’s claim there entire system stalled and began a slow process of decline, although they remained military strong for centuries. I wonder why? What is Tolerance in this period then?
"As Muslims, we say to Christians that we are not against them and that Islam is not against them — so long as they do not wage war against Muslims on account of their religion, oppress them and drive them out of their homes."
I would hardly say that this is a demand for theological conformity. The text is very clear IMO that the common ground between the two faiths are monotheism and the ethics of brotherly love.
The reactionary, fear-filled responses and polemical denunciations of Mohammed (pbuh) and Islam are dangerously flammable; theological disagreement should be discussed politely and reasonably. I do not hear Muslims in this document attacking Christ or Christians, but rather asking not to be attacked.
We, upon whom the ends of the earth have come, must find ways of living together. I applaud and support this effort, and I encourage all who read this to do the same.
By the way, that's the good Johnny above, not the Johnny C. He's my husband for those who didn't know.
I am very short on time. Mark, you're barking up the wrong tree if you think I am an apologist for Islam. I'm not. I have no interest in debating the finer points of Islamic theology. This is an effort, however, we should not ignore. If Muslim leaders are reaching out because, as they put it, the "very survival of the world is at stake", saying "Let this common ground be the basis of all future interfaith dialogue between us, for our common ground is that on which hangs all the Law and the Prophets (Matthew 22:40)", it is a tremendous opportunity for us to do so.
The Muslim leaders are being very conciliatory, appealing to our sense of the commandments. I'm not sure how this can be a bad thing. This isn't al-Qaeda trying to trick us into a peace treaty or truce. These are religious scholars and leaders desiring world peace and asking our participation in this endeavor. There is no trick involved in their request.
If we judge Judaism by the letter of the Law alone, using the Torah as we like to use the Koran alone to judge Islam, both religions are dangerous. There's obviously more to it than that.
Finally, in terms of Robert Spencer, he gets into the finer points of history and theology. I am looking at Islam not as one who wishes to validate Islam theologically. I cannot. I am a Christian first and foremost. But I have heard Robert Spencer lecture at length and he agrees with the COIN type strategy of alienating apostates within the religion from good Muslims in order to win the war on terrror and have hope for the future. He's discussed in lectures hirabah as I have here on this blog.
That said, understanding Islam in order to give into demands or appease an enemy is NOT my goal. My goal is to understand Islam inasmuch as we can then use their religion against them (terrorists), marginalizing their efforts, collaborating with the good elements of the religion without whom we cannot win this epic battle and to intevene in the process of al-Qaeda type indoctrination of the next Muslim generation. I can all but garauntee that insulting Islam rather than dialoguing with them as the Pope does will NOT stop the next generation of young Muslims from taking up arms in what they wrongly perceive is jihad.
If they are willing to bridge the gap, how can we not?
Hi, Pavel from Belgium, born in Prague : The first step to cease to misunderstand the islam is to cease to call this "god-misinspired" holistic totalitarism a "religion".
I've got no problem with dialog with Muslims, but you had better be ready to realize the difference in language, peace to a Muslim means something different than the model of that term in your mind. freewill is not even a real concept in Islam, and a God who actually desires fellowship with us lowly humans? that is almost unthinkable heresy to them. there are two very different Gods described in the two books, with really almost no similarities. One offers us a choice of redemption salvation, and everlasting life and communion with him, the other offers little prizes for complete submission to Muhammad's word, like maybe 72 hot virgin chicks if you can whack enough Israeli schoolchildren. but never communion with the everlasting God. where, pray tell, are the similarities?
Just for kicks, Please ask your priest and any others you can contact whether they think Christians and Muslims worship the same God, I'm curious what they would think about that, even though we've heard from that great theologian, George Bush.
Mark Krauss, you really are a person that builds "bridges" in the world aren't you? In Islam Jesus is a prophet, and a holy figure. Imagine that eh? Does Christianity recognize Mohammed or any other distinctly muslim figures? They must be inheritely "evil" according to you?
Some of you yankees are a hilariously bigoted bunch.
Mavic, is it at all possible for you to offer some positive commentary instead of being so condescending and negative all the time?
Amy,
It is not always my intention to leave condescending remarks, however one can only reply in condescending terms to those who wilfully denounce every culture, religion, race or creed other than what they call their own. I don't think there are too many kind words to be said to such bigots.
That being said, your post was well intentioned and should be commended for realising that in order to mend our countless differences, we must take an approach of dialogue and understanding. Lets hope that the Mark Krauss's of the world are a dwindling few.
"Just for kicks, Please ask your priest and any others you can contact whether they think Christians and Muslims worship the same God, I'm curious what they would think about that, even though we've heard from that great theologian, George Bush."
President Bush correctly states the Catholic position that Muslims adore the one true God, the God of Abraham. Source:
Catechism of the Catholic Church and Lumen Gentium from Vatican II.
Of course some evangelicals belive we Catholics are not Christians at all.
Johnny is correct. Muslims and Christians may see God differently, but the God is the same. That doesn't mean Musilms have correct theology, which is why it is hard for some people accept that Muslims/Jews/Christians worship the same God. Go to the passage I linked to in Genesis where Abraham and Hagar had Ishmael, who is the lineage through which all Arabs originated. Both Jews and Arabs have the same father who worshipped the same God.
This is not an endorsement of Islam's theology.
Mark's words echo a misunderstanding, in my opinion, of this entire issue. It is difficult to conceive that Islam, which produces such notable heretics, is reaching out to negotiate peace and reason with other religions, which is why I wrote the post.
It wasn't long ago that I held the view that the entire religion was bad to the core. I have since come to understand that the "let's just turn the Middle East into a parking lot" and "carpet bomb the Muslims" was hurting us in the realm of terrorism. While as a Christian I believe I have the one true faith, but I must acknowledge that not all will see faith my way and negotiating a peace and being tolerant of other religions is necessary for peace in the world. This doesn't include being tolerant of moral error, however; I won't be tolerant of gay clergy or paganism, but I do believe that religions that don't harm the world should have the right to live in peace and reason together.
As we can see, there are certainly many in Islam who wish do to the right thing and reject violence.
"Does Christianity recognize Mohammed or any other distinctly muslim figures?" --Mavic
Mavic, please take a course in a community college or something – read a history book. Christianity was formed about seven centuries before Islam. Back then, how could they have recognized it as a religious movement that took place centuries later? Christianity, as far as I know, doesn’t discriminate between the color of the skin or the region one was from. Anthropologically, that is Darwinian racism, was not even invented then. There were no concepts of race. However, one could be identified by tribe or state. In states, there could be many people of many colors and from many regions. Christianity did not look to delineate between such distinctions. There does not seem to be evidence of this. The only distinctions in the NT were Jesus’ break from the Old Testament covenants (Jewish identity-centrist traditions), and his management of the people who were opposed to the Romans (occupation issues).
*If you are concerned with how Islam sees Christians, here is a summery of importance.
Christians’ believe Jesus is a part of God. Muslim believe Jesus is not a part of God, but only his messenger, and on a lower hierarchal ladder of importance than Alexander 'the Great'-- who Muhammad regarded as a “ Great Prophet” of God.
Amazing what gets said is a few hours sometimes, let's see, Mavic isn't worth my time to reply to. Amy and Johnny, I do not wish to "turn the mideast into a parking lot" far from it, any Muslim who can live and let live is fine by me, I can even be friendly civil, and respectful to Muslims. but having put some study to Islam and the culture I see that letter as a poorly veiled threat to Christians from those Muslim scholars. Islam does not accept Jesus as the son of God. that is as plain as i can state this and ANY Muslim scholar would wholly agree with that statement.
Now, Jesus said in John 14-6 "I am the way, the Truth, and the life, and NO man can come to the Father but by me.
Secondly if Jesus is not God, by what authority was he able to purchase our redemption with his life? if Jesus is just a man, born into sin like the rest of us, his sacrifice would not, and could not purchase our redemption. and we are without hope.
Jesus does not give anyone any room to fence sit, you either have to believe Jesus is the son of God he said he is, or you have to believe Jesus is bug shit friggin crazy.
so, I'd have to respectfully disagree with that point in Vatican 2, (by the way, I believe anyone believing Jesus at his word a Christian, remember the two sinners, crucified with Christ, one saved, not by baptism, church attendance, or anything else but belief in Jesus word. the other, the cynical smartass one? Lord knows.
Bob Spencer's take on the letter is a worthy read, it's here:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/018436.php
Amy, my eyes burn when I read their words, I do not trust them. Thanks to DR. Spencer and others we can understand the motive, notice how the Jews are left out. It is some slick propaganda for sure.
The Apostles also taught "in as much as it is up to you, live in peace with ALL men" (Romans 12:18). No one, including these 138 Islamic scholars is advocating theological synchretism, but social and political tolerance.
Please advocate a better way ahead for co-existence. I'm all ears.
Mark, I will check out the link to Robert Spencer's take on the letter.
We're not talking about savlation here, Mark. We're talking about the wisdom in entering into dialogue with Muslims who reject terrorism under the guise of Islam. My personal opinion is that Muslims to not have eternal life. This is not the point being argued here. It's about making a distinction between extremists who call themselves Muslims and real Muslims who condemn terrorism as contradictory to good religion.
I'm coming at this from a COIN (counterinsurgency) angle. If we are not willing to note the obvious, that there are many good Muslims who can be faithful to their religion and shun terrorism AND offer the olive branch to the rest of us to show they reject terrorism, then we should absolutely leave Iraq yesterday and stay out of the war on terror completely, preparing ourselves instead for occassional attacks from al-Qaeda... maybe worse catastrophies.... because if we do not attempt to bridge this gap WE CANNOT WIN.
That's my angle. It's not about validating the theology of Islam.
As for your assertion regarding the Catholic Church and baptism, I will simply point you toward doctrine via the Catholic Catechism:
Point being, the theif on the cross didn't exactly have the opportunity to be baptized.
My thoughts on Robert Spencer's interpretation.
1) He is also Catholic. I don't take a Protestant's interpretation of Catholicism over a Catholic apologist. That said, while I respect his opinion, he is not a Muslim and is looking at it from a purely theological standpoint. On those points I don't disagree. On matters of winning the global war on terror (GWOT), I do disagree.
2) He seems to misinterpret the tone the open letter. It appears to me to be conciliatory and an honest attempt to bridge the gap. I have posted on this blog many, many examples of Muslims in Iraq giving the message of this letter... my husband served in Iraq and we currently have friends there and they say the same.
3) The best case scenario for a Catholic would be to interpret the Pope's reaction to such an outreach. He was so sympathetic to their plight a year ago that he opened THE VATICAN itself to Muslims, and Musilms understood what he meant by quoting the Byzantine emperor: terrorism and religion are incompatible.
Here is Pope Benedict visting a mosque in Turkey. I also recall Pope John Paul II meeting his would be assassin in his prison cell and counceling with him. These are the lengths Christians should go toward reconciliation, particularly when the hand of peace is being handed to us.
4) Spencer in my opinion incorrectly assessed that the Muslim scholars, politicians and leaders were threatening that there would be no world peace if Christians do not accept their olive branch. That is clearly NOT what is being said in the letter. It was not a threat, it was an invitation, and a sincere one, I fully believe.
Pardon my skepticism, yes, fine, dialog is great! but I fear it will be very short lived. and the Christians will be blamed for the collapse. which I think is the intention anyway. I know this isn't about salvation, but dialog, gut if the requirement is to reject Christ? (which i think will be the case) what then?
this bit bothers me, it's part of your above quote:
As Muslims, we say to Christians that we are not against them and that Islam is not against them — so long as they do not wage war against Muslims on account of their religion, oppress them and drive them out of their homes.
Finally, as Muslims, and in obedience to the Holy Qur’an, we ask Christians to come together with us on the common essentials of our two religions … that we shall worship none but God, and that we shall ascribe no partner unto Him, and that none of us shall take others for lords beside God … (Aal ‘Imran , 3:64)
firstly Islam has been in an overt war with Christianity ever since it's inception. (wouldn't mavic be surprised?) and the second part
In Islam speak that means Christians! dump Christ or we'll kick your ass!
and I know you Won't do that. hence the problem.
and this:
As Muslims, we say to Christians that we are not against them and that Islam is not against them — so long as they do not wage war against Muslims on account of their religion, oppress them and drive them out of their homes.
these folks are still sore about being driven from southern Europe, and claim much of spain, southern france, etc. still belong to them and are technically "occupied territory", as is ALL of Israel. so in Islam speak we have already broken this "agreement" we didn't sign on to and are guilty because we support Israel's right to exist and france and spain's right to stay in one piece.
now, I used the example of the thief on the cross not to argue against Baptism, or going to church, for those able, they should. but my standard for who I consider a Christian, If that thief's oh so short conversion confession and request was good enough for my Lord, it's good enough for me. eh?
dunno what I might have said to make you think I might be anti-Catholic, aint true.
jeez I'm tired, and I have to work in a few, I hope this is coherent but as I've gone back and forth in this little window I'm not making any promises. good night y'all.
Mark, we share your suspicion of Islamic double-mindedness and theological condemnation of trinitarianism. Christ is God; that is beyond a Christian's ability to challenge. That said, we cannot pursue a course where theological disagreement leads to inevitable military confrontation. We have no chance in such a confrontation. Muslims, however lacking in religious devotion, will rise up in arms against those that attack a Muslim country. Our own country will turn on us Christians very quickly. We do not have the same footing or influence in our decadent, radically secularized country. We may absorb blame for inflaming religious tensions by polemical confrontation but the whole of our society will NOT support us if the Church is attacked by radical Muslims. In fact, large numbers of influential Americans will rejoice in our persecution and condemn us mercilessly.
Ha, I will tell you a bit of dating advice I received sometime ago: Watch their feet.
Translated: it's not what they say, it's what they do.
Say, I love you, why can't we all be pals while they attack changes nothing.
Sorry.
first of all, i think it is a fallacy to say that Osama is defining Islam. He is defining a movement of which he leads. so, I agree with the friend who said that as long as Osama called it jihad...
We as Christians has seen many of these where a single aspect is the defining element at the beginning, Baptists, Adventists, Latter Day Saints, etc. but none can say that they redefined Christianity. Even the word Protestant is the singular element that unites a sector of Christianity and even as large as that sector is they still cannot be seen as redefining Christianity.
And maybe to the gangrene of the Protestant community the Pope is still considered as the head of the Christian faith not just the Roman Catholic faith to the world.
one more thing must be considered also. that is, that the Bible, it self, has been changed, not in words, but by interpretation of meaning over time. so, yes, amy, i agree, let's give dialog a fair hearing. it is the one time i can say that there is no such thing as a last resort solution such as war to solve religious problems between different religions.
this is said in recognition of the fact many religious wars have occurred over time but they never solved any problem and it even can be said to have caused bigger problems.
I'm with Goat. I don't trust them. Yet, to say I don't trust them doesn't mean I won't give them a chance to prove they are trustworthy. They have to do the proving, not us having to bend over to accommodate them. Anything else would find us right back where we are now a decade or two into the future.I'd rather not bequeath this to my grandsons and granddaughters. I believe there will be enough conflicts going on without leaving this one to them, too.
When 9/11 happened, along with the great shock we experienced we had groups of Muslims complaining about how they were treated differently, looked at funny, discriminated against. They expected from us to not notice, not look at them funny when they look and act no different from those who drove the planes into our buidlings. Before 9/11 it never occurred to me to look at or treat them any differently from anyone else.
Historically, we've seen avowed enemies join together to fight against Western Civilization, and then once the conflict is over, they go back to fighting amongst themselves. We've heard Ahmadinejad talking about being the one to reveal the 12th Imam.
I won't actively disavow this chance at a different relationship with Islam but I'll keep my shield of skepticism handy at the same time, if you don't mind.
Hi guys,
First I respect what the Pope is trying to accomplish. And I understand this is dialogue in purposes of trying to forge some common grounds.
However, I'm going to disagree on the Islamic motivations in the end. No matter how genuine their intentions may appear up front the "olive branch" is not reflective of Mohammed's Doctrine for living in peaceful submission to Allah. The Quran nor the Hadith's extend Olive Branches. That is a Judeo-Christian concept for the pure of heart. Mohammed commands specific ways that Christias and Jews may live under submission as second class citizens. While this has not come out fully in this initial letter. It is clear their statement on Christ.
quoting...
"... common essentials of our two religions … that we shall worship none but God, and that we shall ascribe no partner unto Him, and that none of us shall take others for lords beside God … (Aal ‘Imran , 3:64)
There plane and simple - especially the "partner" that is repeated thru history. Every single bolded point is to eliminate Christ from the equation as the living Son of God. Until they can respect our rights to recognize him as such and stop preaching down to us as children, this is not a serious dialogue, no matter how flattering at first it may appear, nor how desperate we may all be for dialogue.
The Quran, Hadiths, even inscriptions on the Dome of the Rock denounce Jesus Christ loudly and boldly that anyone believing in the Messiah as the Son of God is committig heresy. They built the Dome over top of Temple Mount as they always build Mosque over the top of any conquered land, Synagogue and Church. They then put their final mark of denunciation over the Christians.
They see Christ only as a "prophet" and nothing more. Plus they deny his sacrifice on the cross in the Quran itself. They deny he died and rose again. He is still dead in their teachings and did not rise. This is part of their liturgy if you will, part of their teachings.
It'll be interesting to see how the Pope responds. Will he broach the topic of Chist as our Lord and Savior? Or, will he bend to their will and not mention such "conflicts" in the name of "civility."
Here is an easy test. Ask them to write a letter that understands that Christians have a right to worship Jesus Christ as the Son of God. Wait for a response. They will denounce Christ as the Son and our beliefs.
Again, I commend the Pope for his attempts. I'll await to see the results. Hope, Pray, and Patience.
ps. Facts on Dome of the Rock inscription translation is very clear:
First Inside the Dome...
O People of the Book! Do not exaggerate in your religion
nor utter aught concerning God save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a Messenger of God, and His Word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in God and His messengers, and say not 'Three' - Cease! (it is)
better for you! - God is only One God. Far be it removed from His transcendent majesty that He should have a son. His is all that is
in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And God is
sufficient as Defender. The Messiah will never scorn to be a
servant unto God, nor will the favoured angels. Whoso scorneth
His service and is proud, all such will He assemble unto Him.
Oh God, bless Your Messenger and Your servant Jesus
NW son of Mary. Peace be on him the day he was born, and the day he dies, and the day he shall be raised alive! Such was Jesus, son of Mary, (this is) a statement of the truth concerning which they doubt. It befitteth not (the Majesty of) God that He should take unto Himself a son. Glory be to Him!"
Anyone get the message clearly enough yet? Christ is a liar and his followers, people of the Book are liars, stop lying.
External inscriptions...
There is no god but God. He is One. Praise be to
God, Who hath not taken unto Himself a son, and Who hath
no partner in the Sovereignty, nor hath He any protecting friend
through dependence."
Seem like familiar rhetoric? Good, cuz it is the same. "there is no partner to God" simple, straight forward.
reference link: http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/DoTR.html
I am all for attempts at peaceful reconciliations, but with eyes wide open I will never bend down to their views of Christ our Lord and Savior or of God the Father. Which the do not recognize as attributes in Allah.
And thus, here we are, 1400 years later after a caravan theif, a madman, schitzophrenic first murdered, pillaged and raped his first booty, still arguing that they will not subdue us. That is why later in the Quran, Mohammed detest the "people of the book" because thankfully our spiritual ancestors and the Jews at the time, refused to bow down and follow Mohammed. He hated them, wrote down the rules of hatred and submission and ever since there has been war.
But hey... keep trying :) At least until we subdue the barbaians again. This war is eternal, as Mohammed in my opinion is the False Prophet.
Please let me know the day Muslims allow us to wipe out those abominous inscriptions on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.
In Christ, Our Risen Lord and Savior.
Amy,
you said,
"A fatal mistake we non-Muslims make is to continually elevate terrorists to the level of religious leaders by engaging in their taunt of "jihad" and ignoring that there are indeed both apostates and faithful within Islam."
To clarfy I agree with this fully. Osama is now seen as an apostate by many since Al Qaeda has bombed innocent "Muslims" for four years
Halleluiah! :) Yes, we should reach out, talk, engage. I am not against this with the reasonable and moderate leaders.
Most people in life desire to get along for the most part. Unfortunately there is forever printed in the Quran a supremist view. It is going to be a long, tough battle and a long engagement of ideas. And somehow, someway, the Moderate Muslims will eventually have to make a Reformation, just like Christians went through.
However, again, there is one huge difference. Unlike the reformation of Christians where they could point to text in defense of such radical ideas at the time. I fear that Islam cannot do the same without creating their own civil wars and fully abrogating the latter text added by Mohammed after he hated the Peopl of the Book in favor of the former text when he admired the People of the Book.
It is going to be a long struggle both internally for Muslims and us.
I think if a Christian wants to have a lasting dialog with a Muslim, they should steer away from any serious theology. talk law, explain how we divide civil law from Religion here in the west, talk cultural issues, etc.
Because a serious theological discussion between a Muslim and a Christian can go south REAL fast.
as far as the letter is concerned I pretty much agree with Bob Spencer, It's what they didn't say that speaks volumes.
Compromises, and the lack thereof.
this is just a bit off topic, but study the Palestinian-Israeli problem and you will realize the Palestinians have never made a single compromise to secure the peace. they want it all, and the only ones who compromise their position time and time again is Israel, and every time they do, the Palestinians claim it is not enough and launch an even bigger intifada. read this story:
http://www.nysun.com/article/64482
Kris, the flaw in your logic is in determining who "they" are. You lumping all Muslims in one pile and defining them by the apostates who want to kill us is like defining me by the less than 1% of priests who've abused children. It's simply an unfair categorization.
Again, since 2001 everyone's been asking "Where are the 'moderate' Muslims and why are they not speaking up against terrorism?" Now they are, and extending a hand of peace and friendship at the same time, and we contradict the sincerity of our original question because in reality, people don't believe there are good faithful Muslims and choose rather to lump all in one pile.
Look, let's be honest about this. Mormons have a truly weird theology, yet they have some of the best and most moral people in the world. They're glaring eyesore has been polygamy, which as we've seen in the news also leads to old perverted men taking advantage of young girls including them in their wife-count.
With Islam, the vulnerabilities of their theology have facilitated the extremism that we are fighting today, but they are NOT the good and the faithful. They are the apostates. WE HAVE TO MAKE THIS DISTINCTION.
So kris, unless you're advocating the carpet bombing of the entire Middle East, you have to understand the differences between the apostates and the sincere faithful in Islam. To do otherwise is potentially genocidal.
And you're definition of "they" is inappropriate. These scholars and religious leaders who have reached out to the Christian church DESPITE THEIR OWN PROBLEMS WITH THEIR APOSTATES are not in that group.
And so this leads us back to the question, "Well, then, where are the good Muslims?" And the answer: they are the ones who reject terrorism and promote unity. Essentially, they are the ones you've just condemned as insincere.
Not exactly the way to promote world peace.
Out of respect for Amy and this wonderful blog, and in deference to her husband Johnny's supposed expertise in these matters, I was determined to stay out of this argument, which seemed to be rapidly becoming a theological debate. I do not enter into theological debates, especially on my favorite blogs.
However, having said that, I cannot in good conscience allow Johnny's previous comments to go unchallenged. I'm sorry Johnny, but I have to say this. Regardless of your current position in the military and your alleged expertise, to me you are sounding more and more like a modern day version of Charles Lindberg. You tell us that we have no choice but to "get along with" Muslims, because they are so powerful and numerous that "we would have no chance in such a confrontation". This is precisely the same kind of defeatist appeasement message Lindberg and the AFC were trying to preach about our prospects of winning a military confrontation with Nazi Germany, before WWII. As we eventually discovererd, our goal was not to "get along with" Nazi Germany, but rather to defeat them. Whatever it took.
I fully realize that our present circumstances are very different than our circumstances in 1941. However, some things never change. And the sound of appeasement and defeatism and overly indentifying with our enemies never changes.
Worst of all -- and I'm afraid I have to say, most revealing -- is your incredible statement that "We [the United States of America] do not have the same footing or influence in or DECADENT, RADICALLY SECULARIZED COUNTRY". Wow.
I'm sorry to say this Johnny, but you seem to more closely associate yourself with our enemy's talking points than with our own moral integrity.
A while back I got into a rather heated dispute with you before I knew who you were. Now I do know who you are but it changes nothing.
If these comments of mine serve to alienate me from Amy and thus this site, I'm sorry. But I just can't let these incredible statements go unanswered.
Sincerely,
Roger G.
When I see these Mullahs, Imans or any others stand up in opposition to and boot out those from within their ranks that are bringing terror to the world, I'll be more receptive to any Olive Branches from them.
I fail to see how they can extend any gestures of peace while members of their religion commit terror worldwide.
Yes, we need to co-exist with Muslims and I'm all for it. But at the same time, they must take a stand against those that are from within their ranks and terrorizing the world.
Only a comparative few have done so to date and the world sorely needs their cooperation to be peaceful. An Olive Branch in one hand extended in front and a sword in the other hand behind the back will not acheive peace.
Muslims too must take a stand against Radical Islamic Terrorists.
I’m very disappointed in this dialogue. It seems like a fairly easy concept to grasp and as much as I explain it, it doesn’t seem to be taking root. This is very disheartening.
First, Lew Waters: you said:
All I can do is reiterate what I’ve already said. That is, first distinguish who are you talking about. Mullahs in Iran, for example, that advocate death or destruction are not the ones offering an olive branch.
And if you don’t see how “they” can extend any gestures of peace while members of their religion commit terror, what became of Christianity during the Inquisitions or the struggle between Protestants and Catholics in Ireland for decades? That struggle did not delegitimize the faithful followers of Christ. It only serves to prove my point that every religion has internal struggles that the religion itself must overcome.
Lumping all Muslims into the same category is completely unfair. Look at the 10’s of thousands of Christian denominations divided along theological lines. It’s as ridiculous to include a David Koresh into a dialogue when discussing legitimate Christianity. Do we include gay Episcopal bishop Gene Robinson when engaging in serious dialogue about examples of GOOD CHRISTIANS? I think not; he’s an apostate. Or Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Bakker, et al, and there many moral flaws? So why do we look to the apostates of Islam to define their religion when we don’t with our own? Why do we not give credit to the Muslims who are trying to do what we’ve been asking of them for years: TO STAND UP AGAINST VIOLENT RADICALS IN THEIR RELIGION AND LIVE LIKE THEY ARE A RELIGION OF PEACE? This is what they are trying to do and we keep cutting them off at the knees.
Part of GEN Petraeus’ successful COIN (counterinsurgency) strategy is reconciling with enemies. As he pointed out, if they were not enemies, there would be no need to reconcile.
With the pervasive and in my opinion very malformed opinions about Islam expressed by many here, we have no choice but to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan now. All the “good news” coming from Iraq of reconciliation and reports coming from our troops and commanders saying the same thing I am, which includes GEN Petraeus’ testimony, must be fraudulent. Essentially all my good conservative friends are pulling a Hillary and saying to GEN Petraeus and our military leaders, “You’re requiring of us the willful suspension of disbelief.” This coming from my conservative readers is very, very sad.
Finally, Lew, you said:
THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT! This open letter is Muslim leaders, not just lay people, rejecting radical elements of their religion. I'm completely confused about why this seems to not be understood by my usual readers.
Roger, I wouldn’t want you stay out of a discussion for fear of stepping on my toes.
I do have to say a thing or two about my husband’s comments which I believe you totally misunderstood. First, he does not have an “alleged expertise”. He recently wrote a teaching guide to military leaders on Shiaism, which was read by GEN Petraeus, that has been enthusiastically endorsed by individual military leaders. I went to a promotion ceremony on Friday for a COL and he praised, during his own promotion ceremony, Johnny’s work as he was receiving it from HIS superiors with an “you must read this guide!” I am fair in my assessment when I say Johnny is a genius in the area of religion and counterinsurgency in the same company as Petraeus. He’s too humble to agree but it is true nonetheless.
In Johnny’s comment, “We do not have the same footing or influence in our decadent, radically secularized country”, he was appealing to your sense of loyalty to Christians around the globe living in Muslim countries. The very real fact is that if we do not help Muslims extract the cancer of radicalism from their religion but continue to do what many in this thread have done and insisted on lumping all Muslims into the “jihadi” category, we are literally forcing them to align with the radicals. It’s like Anbar Province; if Iraqis didn’t believe they could turn to us for help, they would have had no choice but to align themselves with al-Qaeda despite their hatred and fear of them.
Johnny meant by his statement that if we continue down this path of painting Muslims, like those who wrote the open letter to Christians desiring reconciliation and rejecting radicalism, into a corner to choose between the threats of extremism or an fraternity with a so-called ally (US) who insists all Muslims are terrorists anyway, guess which they will pick.
This will make Christians sitting ducks in Muslim countries for slaughter. They have a hard enough time as it is now, but rejecting the olive branch will make it even more unbearable instead of possibly creating an understanding of co-existence and mutual respect between the two religions.
And the U.S. is decadent and secularized. We export and glorify abortion, sex, pornography….
Again, I am not endorsing nor promoting Islam. I am saying if the ones we’ve been asking for years to step up to the plate to denounce the violence in their religion are finally doing so and offering us the olive branch of reconciliation, how foolish and arrogant are we to turn up our noses at it? As Johnny pointed out from Romans 12:18, the first Christian apostles urged us “in as much as it is up to you, live in peace with ALL men". Is that just a slogan?
Mr. Gardener:
I don't know if you have worn the uniform of the US Military on foreign shores, but I have in several different countries. We are regarded by most Islamic countries as promoters of promiscuity. Please provide evidence to the contrary.
I have been shot at, RPGed and mortared by Islamic terrorists. If anyone should have an ax to grind, it should be the Soldiers and Marines. But it is we who are pleading for more time because we see the progress on the ground due to the heroic and patriotic sacrifices of Iraqis and Afghans in partnership with us, some who indeed are Christians.
It is tragically misinformed to frame this in WWII type paradigm as though we were at war with ISLAM and not extremists. Yes, in WWII we were at war with Nazism and the Japanese cult of the emperor. We did however, establish lasting partnerships with the Germans and Japanese that has lasted to this day - AND, neither republic has engaged in warfare since then except at our side.
If you read appeasement in my words you are wrong, sir. I have fought these people in real life, and I have also eaten with them, prayed with them, laughed and cried with them. They are just like us. They are in a helluva dangerous world. And we owe them the decency to establish a free and safe republic of their own choice, even if that republic is based loosely on Islam.
Engagement and diplomacy is the way ahead, not ill-informed inflammatory religious rhetoric. For God's sake, that's what UBL does.
As the verse I quoted above says, "in as much as it is up to you, live in peace with ALL men" (Romans 12:18).
My own analysis & refutation of the extortion letter is here: http://snooper.wordpress.com/2007/10/12/a-common-word-islamic-extortion-scheme/ . I used the Qur'an, Hadith, Tafsir & Fiqh to point out a few of the many deceptions in the letter. Muhammad went to the local Jews and said "Embrace Islam and you will be safe. He used the same terminology in multiple extortion letters, then he sent his army.
Islam is not what I want it to be. Islam is not what you want it to be. Islam is not what any man now living wants it to be. Islam is what Muhammad said and did.
Islam can not be reformed. Perfection can only be defiled, not improved. "This day I have perfected for you your religion." "Allah's word does not change." "No change let there be in "...
3:64 is a threat. "If they turn back" is an expression frequently used in the Qur'an and the context is consequential. To prove this fact, I brought out Ibn Kathir's Tafsir in this response to an analencephalopath: http://community.compuserve.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?msg=201964.4&nav=messages&webtag=ws-politics#a4
It has not responded because the truth can not be refuted.
Again, Ben is framing the conflict as Islam vs the world. Why would these scholars reach out the Christian world with such wisdom and pragmatism as this:
"Muslims and Christians together make up well over half of the world’s population. Without peace and justice between these two religious communities, there can be no meaningful peace in the world. The future of the world depends on peace between Muslims and Christians."
We are NOT at war with Islam. If we are, why has it taken so long to wake up and recognize it? The fact is that western decadence and cultural imperialism has inflamed and aggravated a festering restlessness among peoples long subjected by western powers (the Brits, Danes and the French).
Are you Christian? Then surely you know that these movements were foretold by Christ, the Apostles and the Hebrew writing prophets. The world is dashing toward a tumultuous finale - a finale in blood and fire. Until then, we are commanded to seek peace and follow it.
"I exhort therefore that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men; for kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." - 1 Timothy 2:1-4
Its clear that Christian prayer is ordered toward conditions conducive to the proclamation of the Gospel, which, unless I am mistaken, are framed in St. Paul's injunction as conditions of authority, peace and order.
I agree that the framework Ben places around Islam is flawed. Also, consider doing a line by line examination of the Torah or New Testament and you'll find similarly troubling excerpts. The fact is that no religion worth its salt says any other belief but their's is the real religion. That includes Christianity.
Again, Johnny and I are not looking at this from the position of validating Islamic theology. It's about winning the war on terror. I thought that was what we all wanted.
Herein lies the misnomer..."...We are NOT at war with Islam..."
Well, they sure bloody well are at war with us. I have read the fatwahs.
The reason it has not come to the fore is that to recognize this war as the Holy War the ENEMY has made this to be by their very actions and deeds and verbiage, would be to recognize that THIS country, AMERICA, has indeed turned its collective backs on God, as a nation. Denying that fact, one must be suffering from the Ostrich Syndrome. Look around you. If Jesus was physically in America, what would he do? Would He turn the Changing Tables over and go on a rampage of Righteous Indignation? Yes, He most certainly would and SHOULD.
I, too, have faced the current enemy in battle. My first encounter was in 1975 or, thereabouts. My last encounter was 2004.
Most of the enemy have been brainwashed from their youth that America is the Evil Empire and from their points of view, comparing what our nation "believes in" and what "their" religion teaches them, they are correct.
For the United States to continue as it is and for Islam to continue to be the way it is, we will be in perpetual war for a very long time. We wish to live in peace, excepting all as they are and get along. The very teachings of Islam does not allow for the "get along" genre of thought.
There are some Muslims that believe Islam is an evil thing. They are apostates in accordance with the very teachings of Islam.
Putting this as simply as possible, the "radicals", if you will, of Islam desire to bring back the Caliph and the 12th Imam. What is stopping them? The United States is in the way. Should we step aside and accept the Olive Branch of Islam, all of Europe to SE Asia will fall to the Caliph.
Instead of the US accepting the Olive Branch of Deceit, perhaps the "unradicals" should arise and destroy the "radicals" of their own faith, for lack of a better world and denounce the murderous teachings of Islam.
I would LOVE to have peace but I am NOT willing to convert to Islam as Islam so teaches, to get it. I am NOT willing to turn Europe over to the Caliph and the 12th Imam of Iran, the Land of The Aryan. I fought them in battle and I will be damned if I invite them to dinner.
GREAT discussion here!!
So many times I see "debate" on this issue go off into many tangents and I agree with Amy and Johnny in this regard...we MUST be victorious in the War On Terror.
To accept the Olive Branch, I for one MUST see some qualifying actions on the part of ALL Muslims the world over.
Muslims Against Sharia is indeed a GREAT start.
Very few "moderate Muslims" have condemned the "theoretical radicals" of Islam.
Just as soon as there are an obvious majority of Muslims the world over condemning "AchmadInA Jihad" of Iran and those like him, then and only then will this warrior accept the thought of an Olive Branch.
Its much more nuanced than that, and the stakes are far higher than the "maybe I will, and maybe I won't" attitude of most American statesmen towards learning about Islamic cults and divisions.
Failure to study the intracacies of Islam in this war will be the downfall of the US. Our cultural arrogance thinking all societies enjoy promiscuity, blasphemy and wanton violence will cut our national legs out from underneath us.
Johnny, it is impossible for me to argue with your military background and experience, so I won't. However, it is very easy for me to argue with those statements of yours, and I stand by what I said. I don't see that we are going to change each other's minds in these comments.
I would be very pleased, however, to find out that my reading of our enemies is wrong. I am not being arrogant. I have studied the Koran and read their literature. I have read the pronouncements and the charters of the Islamist groups themselves. I have read their documents and their letters. I am merely taking them at their word.
Dr. Whalid Farris is not being arrogant either, and I trust his expertise and his judgment, Brigitte Gabriel is not being arrogant, and I trust her expertise and her judgment. All of these experts, and many more, many speaking from their own personal experience with Islam, have a deep-seated distust of Islam itself. They see Islam itself as the problem. And I believe them.
This world would be a much nicer place if you were right and I was wrong. If this whole huge cultural and religious confrontation could be ended with an olive branch, I would be thrilled. But, to me, this is just wishful-thinking.
Islam is a religion founded by a ruthless warrior and it extolls violence against their enemies and the infidel. And -- unlike Christianity -- it has never changed. The only so-called reformation was Wahhabism, and all that that movement succeeded in doing was turning Islam inwards, and further turning it against the world of enlightenment and progress -- digging their way out of the well.
Islam offers infidels three choices: convert, live under their subjugation, or die. To my way of thinking, any other reading of Islam is just being disingenuous. Those Muslims who are ignoring these fundamental principles are considered to be apostates by the Islamists. Islam has been trying to conquer the West since its inception. There have just been brief interludes in this ongoing war. Now this war is back again, full force.
Finally, I don't think that Ben has misrepresented the case against Islam, I think that he has just had the courage to speak the truth, however unpleasant it may be,
We shall see.
Respectfully,
Roger G.
Johnny...are you home now?
If so, welcome home and thank you for your service.
Our country owes you the honor and respect and gratitude of which cannot be repaid.
Don't let the Code Pepto Dismal mutants get you down...they are amid a slippery slope into the Abyss of Obscurity.
Amy, you said, This open letter is Muslim leaders, not just lay people, rejecting radical elements of their religion. I'm completely confused about why this seems to not be understood by my usual readers.
While this gesture is nice, and hopefully sincere, a gesture of rejection of the actions of the radical element from their religion isn't exactly opposition or taking a stand against them.
When I see them join our Troops fighting the terrorists or providing information to our Law Enforcement agencies to out those hiding in their midst (primarily within America and Europe), then the gesture takes on a bigger meaning to me.
Ahmadinejad has also sent similar gestures and made statements condemning terorists as did Saddam before him and a few others, Yasser Arafat for one. Could we really fully trust them?
Don't get me wrong, I am one of the few to argue in defense of the religion, although I disagree with it. However, I have to err on the side of safety when accepting gestures from ones I have not seen take a strong stand to eleminate terrorists hiding amongst their numbers worldwide.
We all want to live in peace. I have no love for war and wish to see them won as quickly as possible. This current one and seeing the anti-war left up to their same old actions has me remembering times I'd rather not.
So, lets just say that to me, actions speak much louder than words. I want this gesture to be sincere and meaningful, but haven't seen the actions behind it.
The depth and breadth of our Military is amazing, the best of the best in the art of war are the best of the best in the art of peace too, in my humble opinion. Not Oslo's opinion, mind you, since they seem to think nobody has done more for the goal of peace in our time this past year as Al Gore.
watching all the Goregasms on the news is about to make me puke.
Amy and Johnny...please correct me if I am wrong. ther has been an issue as to the statement "..."We do not have the same footing or influence in or DECADENT, RADICALLY SECULARIZED COUNTRY...".
This is my take as to what he, Johnny, was getting at.
In the enemy's social structure, decadence is dealt with sharply and the influences of the decadent ones is totally at a minimum if not non-existent.
In our society, the moral ones don't have the influence required to stop the downward spiral of the immorality that runs rampant.
One other point. I have read comments above and someone has an idea that Amy is an Islamic apologist. That right there shows that the ones actually saying that and believing that do NOT read Amy's articles and pieces. That is CLEARLY an error and keeping it clean...retarded.
I use Amy's work on my blog on a pretty regular basis and if THIS blog was an Islamic apologist blog< I would be slamming it on a regular basis.
Amy and Johnny. Keep up the GREAT work y'all do here. You have earned the respect of us fellow conservatives.
Lew...GREAT comment.
Mark K...HOOAH!
Snooper, you're right that I am NOT an Islamic apologist. I am a Christian apologist. The fact remains that if we want to win the war on terror we have to do a better job at understanding what we're dealing with and how to get as many good guys on our side as possible. We cannot win this war alone. We need the good Muslims, and they are stepping up to the plate.
:)