March 27, 2008
Why Muslims Become Christian
(SDG)
SDG here with a Yankee cap tip to Mark Shea for pointing out Sherry Weddell's in-depth blog post on a recent study of why Muslims convert to Christianity — a timely subject with Magdi Allam's Easter Vigil baptism by Benedict XVI.
I'll give the summary of the reasons below from the last link above at Christianity Today Library site, but do check out Sherry Weddell's blog post for some good commentary… and a great punch line in the combox.
1) The lifestyle of Christians. Former Muslims cited the love that Christians exhibited in their relationships with non-Christians and their treatment of women as equals.
2) The power of God in answered prayers and healing. Experiences of God's supernatural work—especially important to folk Muslims who have a characteristic concern for power and blessings—increased after their conversions, according to the survey. Often dreams about Jesus were reported.
3) Dissatisfaction with the type of Islam they had experienced. Many expressed dissatisfaction with the Qur'an, emphasizing God's punishment over his love. Others cited Islamic militancy and the failure of Islamic law to transform society.
4) The spiritual truth in the Bible. Muslims are generally taught that the Torah, Psalms, and the Gospels are from God, but that they became corrupted. These Christian converts said, however, that the truth of God found in Scripture became compelling for them and key to their understanding of God's character.
5) Biblical teachings about the love of God. In the Qur'an, God's love is conditional, but God's love for all people was especially eye-opening for Muslims. These converts were moved by the love expressed through the life and teachings of Jesus. The next step for many Muslims was to become part of a fellowship of loving Christians.
Those are the highlights. The reasons for checking out Sherry's blog post include her own commentary and insights, but JA.o readers scanning down to the combox will note a very familiar tone in the very very very extensive, yet almost totally insubstantial, rambling, ADD-tinged polemical headlines that follow.
Scanning down, and down, and down… and down… I found myself wondering why Sherry hadn't just deleted the comment… and then I got to her reply, and laughed out loud.
As Mark Shea says, check thou it out.
P.S. Mark also links to a couple of worthwhile articles on priestly doings among Muslims. Thanks, Mark!
Posted by SDG in Islam | Permalink | Comments (45)
September 17, 2007
"All the Terrorists Bring Is Chaos -- 'Killing People, Stealing Goats, Everything'"
(Jimmy Akin)
A recent study indicates that the popularity of Usama bin Laden and al-Qa`eda is down sharply in Muslim-majority societies.
How sharply?
GET THE STORY.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Islam | Permalink | Comments (85)
June 07, 2007
Converting From Islam In Malaysia
(Jimmy Akin)
A reader writes:
The Malaysian federal court has rejected professed Catholic Lina Joy's appeal to change her stated religion from 'Muslim' to 'Christian' on her identity card. If she still persist to change her religion, she will need to apply for apostasy with the Syariah court, which the Syariah law forbids.
Please help to make available this news to your readers as this would help the world to know more about the suppression of religious freedom in Malaysia. It would be a great help to Lina herself.
I'd be happy to let people know about it and to ask for prayers for her and all in Malaysia and elsewhere in the Muslim world who wish to become Christian. The unsettling thing is that Malaysia is among the more progressive countries in the Muslim world when it comes to this issue.
EXCERPT:
In practice, sharia courts do not allow Muslims to formally renounce Islam, preferring to send apostates to counseling and, ultimately, fining or jailing them if they do not desist.
They often end up in legal limbo, unable to register their new religious affiliations or legally marry non-Muslims. Many keep silent about their choice or emigrate.
Lina Joy, 43, was born Azlina Jailani and was brought up as a Muslim, but at the age of 26 decided to become a Christian. She wants to marry her Christian boyfriend, a cook, but she cannot do so while her identity card declares her to me Muslim.
In 1999, the registration department allowed her to change the name in her identity card to Lina Joy but the entry for her religion remained "Islam."
Malaysia, like neighboring Indonesia, practices a moderate brand of Islam, but Muslims account for only a bare majority of Malaysia's population and are very sensitive to any perceived threats to Islam's special status as the official religion.
Malaysia has been under Islamic influence since the 15th century, but big waves of Chinese and Indian immigrants over the last 150 years has dramatically changed its racial and religious make-up. Now, about 40 percent of Malaysians are non-Muslim.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Islam | Permalink | Comments (50)
February 21, 2007
Theocracy?
(Jimmy Akin)
The last few years we've heard a lot of total nonsense about American democracy becoming a theocracy.
NO, THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A DEMOCRACY BECOMES A THEOCRACY.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Islam | Permalink | Comments (60)
January 23, 2007
"Look, Ma! No Israel!"
(Jimmy Akin)
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Islam | Permalink | Comments (51)
December 07, 2006
Allah = God?
(Jimmy Akin)
A reader writes:
The thought comes from one of your commenters, and I think it's worthy of a blog entry (because I'm trying to work it out myself). Is the Christian God the same god as the Muslim Allah? I think most orthodox Catholics will answer yes, but that generates the question, what does that mean?
The immediately obvious discrepancy is that Muslims deny the Trinity. But other characteristics fail as well. Muslims would shudder at the description of God as "Father."
So if suffient characteristics of their description of God diverges suffiently from our description of God, do we have different gods?
I wrote a philosophical paper on this question a few years ago that I meant to submit as a journal article, but I'm afraid that I haven't gotten around to it. At this point, I'm not even sure what hard drive it's on, so I'll have to do some digging around.
In the meantime, lemme see how well I can come up with a quick encapsulation of the overall argument.
For purposes of simplicity, let us consider the question of prayer, with the understanding that what is said about this topic can be applied in a general way to other forms of relating to the divine, such as offering praise, adoration, etc.
Prayer can be defined in various ways (lifting the heart and mind to God, petitioning God for some good, etc.), but let's use an understanding of prayer that anyone can understand: Prayer is talking to God.
So the question becomes: When Muslims talk to Allah, are they talking to God?
We need not be detained by the fact that the word "Allah" is not the normal English word for God. It is the normal Arabic word for God, and it is used by Arabic-speaking Christians as a designator for the true God all the time.
We also need not be detained by alleged origins of the term in pre- and proto-Muslim history. Where a term comes from does not determine its meaning. How it is used determines its meaning (otherwise the word "nice" would mean "ignorant" since it comes from the Latin word nescius) and so, regardless of where the word came from, how Muslims use this word today is key to determining whether they pray to the same God we do.
How important it is to recognize present use is illustrated by the fact that Arabic-speaking Christians also use "Allah" as a descriptor of the true God. When they so use it, they have in mind a Trinitarian Being, the Second Person of whom became incarnate as Jesus Christ. That's what Arabic-speaking Christians mean by "Allah."
Arabic-speaking Muslims (and other Muslims) obviously mean something different, and the question is whether their usage of the term is different enough that it would prevent prayers they address to Allah from being prayers addressed to God.
What characteristics does a Muslim typically envision Allah as having? I would advance the following list as some of the most important characteristics:
1) Is an uncreated being
2) Is the creator of the universe
3) Appeared to Abraham
4) Is just
5) Is merciful
6) Will raise the dead
7) Is not a Trinity
8) Is not incarnate as Jesus of Nazareth
Characteristics 1-6 are ones that Christians agree with Muslims about. It is characteristics 7 and 8 that are the key points of disagreement. Are they sufficient to keep God from receiving Muslim prayers directed to him?
Before answering that question, take note of this fact: A non-Christian Jewish person would say exactly the same list of characteristics applies to the God to whom they direct their prayers.
Christian tradition and the Bible itself acknowledge that Jewish individuals do worship and pray to God, even if they do not understand that he is a Trinity or that he is incarnate as Jesus of Nazareth. If you're going to say that belief in the Trinity and the Incarnation are essential for worshipping or talking to God then you're going to have a huge problem with Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium.
And yet the person's understanding of God is different than the one that the Church proclaims.
I think that light on this question can be shed by recognizing that it is quite possible for us to talk to someone even if there are things that we don't know about them or even if we have false beliefs about them.
To illustrate this point, let's take the case of someone with a secret identity: Bruce Wayne.
Suppose that I am a paperboy who delivers copies of The Daily Planet in the neighborhood where stately Wayne Manor is located, so one of my customers is millionnaire playboy Bruce Wayne, who always comes out to get his paper promptly, being as interested in local and world affairs as he is. One day as I'm pitching The Daily Planet in the neighborhood, I see him out on his lawn, and I say, "Howdy, Bruce!" He waves back and says, "Hi, Jimmy!"
I had this (brief) conversation with him even though I--as a normal Gothamite (transplanted from Texas)--am totally unaware of the fact that he is secretly Batman. There thus can be things about a person that I do not know and do not believe about him, yet it doesn't stop me from having a conversation with him.
This is analogous to the situation of the Jewish people in the Old Testament, who prayed to God even though the doctrine of the Trinity had not yet been revealed.
But it's not analogous to the situation of someone after the revelation of the Trinity who has considered and rejected the doctrine, so let's go back to the thought experiment.
Suppose that one day as I am pitching copies of The Daily Planet and I notice an article on page one by Lois Lane that is headlined BATMAN IS REALLY BRUCE WAYNE!
Now, I've read all of Lois's previous attempts to prove that Superman is really Clark Kent, and every single time she's run a story like that, it's been disproved. So I long ago concluded that Lois Lane is an unreliable source on the subject of superhero identities.
When I see her latest such story, I just laugh and shrug it off, and when I pitch the paper to Mr. Wayne, I call out "Hey, there's a story on page one that you should really get a kick out of! Haw-Haw!" and Bruce smiles and says, "I know. I already read it on the Internet and had a good laugh. By the way, the Internet is driving dead-tree newspapers out of business, so you should start looking for a new job. May I suggest apologetics?"
Bruce and I were able to have this conversation even though I had already entertained and rejected the claim that he is Batman.
So if I can talk to someone about whom I have false beliefs, what would prevent a person from talking to God even though he has false beliefs about God?
Let me go back to the thought experiment one more time to unearth an insight that should be of help.
The next day I'm tossing papers and I see Mr. Wayne on the lawn and there is a TV reporter there interviewing him. I toss him his paper and shout, "Hey, Mr. Wayne! Thanks for that tip about apologetics! I put in my application with a group in California!" and he calls back, "Good for you, son!"
Unbeknownst to me, the person I talked to this time was not actually Bruce Wayne. In reality, it was Chameleon Boy from the Legion of Super-Heroes, who used his shape-shifting power to impersonate Bruce Wayne so that he coud be interviewed by a reporter while the real Bruce Wayne was being interviewed on TV with Commissioner Gordon at the same time across town, setting up "proof" that Batman and Bruce Wayne are two different people and thus once again denying Lois Lane the prize of outing a superhero.
In this case I believed that I was talking to Bruce Wayne, but in fact I was not. I was actually talking with Chameleon Boy.
In this case I had a massive number of false beliefs about the person I was talking to. I believed that he was (a) a human being, who was (b) a resident of Gotham and (c) a native of the 20th century and (d) from the planet Earth, and (e) a millionnaire and (f) a middle-aged man and (g) someone who possesses no superpowers.
In reality, I was talking to (a) an alien being, who will be (b) a resident of Metropolis and is (c) a native of the 30th century and (d) from the planet Durla, and (e) has no special wealth and (f) is a teenager and (g) possesses the power to change shape.
How could I get so much wrong about the person I was talking to and yet be talking to him? What was it that allowed my words to be addressed to him even though almost every belief I had about him was wrong?
It would seem that there is some set of minimal core criteria that allow me to talk to a person even though almost everything I believe about him is wrong. What might this be?
In the case of an ordinary conversation, I would suggest that the fundamental criterion of who we are talking to is something we aren't always fully conscious of.
Suppose that on the third day I had a partner with me in the car, helping me roll papers, and after I finished speaking to Chameleon Boy, he turned to me and said, "Who were you just talking to?" I reply: "Bruce Wayne," and my partner says, "Who's that?" Annoyed, I point and say, "That guy over there."
"That guy over there" is the real descriptor of who I was talking to. I believed that this person was Bruce Wayne (which was false) and that he was not Batman (which was true), but in reality I was talking to a particular person "over there." As long as there was someone "over there" (i.e., as long as I wasn't hallucinating) then that is the person I was talking to, even if I was mistaken about the person's identity and everything else about him.
Notice thus that we have to different kinds of characteristics that apply to the person I was talking to. The primary criterion is that he was "that guy over there," while everything else about him (the idea that he was Bruce Wayne, that he was not Batman, that he was a human, that he was a millionnaire playboy) were secondary criteria.
This is the way conversations work when we are talking to someone in person: The person we are talking to is the one who satisfies the primary criterion we have in mind--usually "that person over there"--even if none of the secondary criteria we have in mind apply to that person.
Upon discovering that none of the secondary criteria apply, we may say "Oh! I wasn't talking to you!" but we refer in this case to who we intended to talk to, not who we were talking to. If I discover that the person I have been talking to is not who I thought he was, that doesn't change the fact that I was talking to him.
So we've got a handle on how conversations work in person, but what about conversations with people who aren't physically present and can't think of as "that person over there"?
In this case, it seems to me, we have to decide which criteria we are going to treat as primary and which as secondary.
Suppose that I am a person who is unsure whether Christianity is true. I believe that God exists and that he created the world, but I am not sure whether he is a Trinity or whether he incarnated as Jesus of Nazareth. So I pray, "God, please guide me so that I realize the truth about you and whether I should become a Christian."
In this case, the primary criterion of who I am addressing would presumably be "Creator of the Universe" or something like that, and thus the Creator of the Universe would understand that I was addressing him, even though I am uncertain about other things concerning him.
Suppose, though, that I was a person who really hated Christians and was unwilling to address their God, even if he exists. In this case the criteria I am applying to the person I am addressing might be something like "the Creator of the Universe as long as he isn't the Christian God."
In this case my prayer would be addressed to no one because, in fact, the Creator of the Universe is in fact the Christian God. Up in heaven, God would say, "Sorry, but if you're really determined not to talk to the Christian God then you're not talking to me. You're talking to the void."
Now suppose that I believe that the Creator of the Universe isn't the Christian God, but I'm willing to talk to him if he is. In this case my primary criterion is "Creator of the Universe" but "is not the Christian God" is a secondary criterion. As long as this is the case, I'm still going to be talking to God. Up in heaven, God will say, "Okay, you're wrong about me not being the Christian God, but you're still willing to talk to me even if I am, and so your prayers are addressed to a real Being."
If we're going to ask about the prayers of Muslims in particular and whether they are addressed to God, I would say that it depends on the Muslim in question. Some Muslims may be so anti-Christian that they would be unwilling to talk to God--to Allah--if it turned out that he was the God of the Christians. Those Muslims would not be talking to God because there is no being that corresponds to the description "the true God who is not the God of the Christians." They would be talking to the void.
But the vast majority of Muslims don't seem to be in that condition. They may not believe that God is a Trinity or that he incarnated in Jesus of Nazareth, but they are still directing their prayers to something like "Creator of the Universe" or "God who appared to Abraham" or "the one true God" or something like that.
This is what enables the Catechism to state that Muslims "acknowledge the Creator" and that "together with us they adore the one, merciful God" (CCC 841).
Whew!
Okay, that ended up being longer than I meant it to, but I hope it sketches some of the philosophical basis for how a person can genuinely talk to someone (including God) about whom one has false beliefs.
That's something we need to happen because, no matter who we are, at some point in our lives all of us have entertained false beliefs about God--even from misunderstanding perfectly orthodox catechesis in childhood--and we still need God to answer our prayers in those times and to guide us toward a correct understanding of him.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Islam | Permalink | Comments (188)
December 06, 2006
More On The Flying Imams
(Jimmy Akin)
Or so it appears.
EXCERPTS:
Pauline revealed to Pajamas Media that the six imams were doing things far more suspicious than praying - an Arabic-speaking passenger heard them repeatedly invoke “bin Laden,” and “terrorism,” a gate attendant told the captain that she did not want to fly with them, and that bomb-sniffing dogs were brought aboard. Other Muslim passengers were left undisturbed and later joined in a round of applause for the U.S. Airways crew. “It wasn’t that they were Muslim. It was all of the suspicious things they did,” Pauline said.
Another passenger, not the note writer, was an Arabic speaker sitting near two of the imams in the plane’s tail. That passenger pulled a flight attendant aside, and in a whisper, translated what the men were saying. They were invoking “bin Laden” and condemning America for “killing Saddam,” according to police reports.
Meanwhile an imam seated in first class asked for a seat-belt extension, even though according to both an on-duty flight attendant and another deadheading flight attendant, he looked too thin to need one. Hours later, when the passengers were being evacuated, the seat-belt extension was found on the floor near the imam’s seat, police reports confirm. The U.S. Airways spokeswoman Andrea Rader said she did not dispute the report, but said the airline’s internal investigation cannot yet account for the seat-belt extension request or its subsequent use.
A seat-belt extension can easily be used as a weapon, by wrapping the open-end of the belt around your fist and swinging the heavy metal buckle.
Still, it seemed like just another annoying development, typical when flying the friendly skies. Days after the incident, the imam would claim that the steward helped him attach the device. Pauline said he is lying. Hours later, when the police was being evacuated, the steward asked Pauline to hand him the seat-belt extension, which the imam did not attach, but placed on the floor. “I know he is lying,” Pauline said, “I had it [seat belt extension] in my hand.”
Other factors were also considered: All six imams had boarded together, with the first-class passengers - even though only one of them had a first-class ticket. Three had one-way tickets. Between the six men, only one had checked a bag.
And, Pauline said, they spread out just like the 9-11 hijackers. Two sat in first, two in the middle, and two back in the economy section. Pauline’s account is confirmed by the police report. The airline spokeswoman added that some seemed to be sitting in seats not assigned to them.
One thing that no one seemed to consider at the time, perhaps due to lack of familiarity with Islamic practice, is that the men prayed both at the gate and on the plane. Observant Muslims pray only once at sundown, not twice.
“It was almost as if they were intentionally trying to get kicked off the flight,” Pauline said.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Islam | Permalink | Comments (51)
November 22, 2006
6 Imams Removed From Flight
(Jimmy Akin)
Y'know, I really find my sympathy significantly limited when it comes to
The facts, so far as I can discern them, appear to be these:
Six imams returning from an imam conference got on a plane headed to Phoenix and then--prior to takeoff--three of them stood up and started reciting standard evening Muslim prayers in Arabic. The other passengers, however, didn't speak Arabic or understand the significance of the prayers and got nervous. One of them then passed a note to the flight crew, following which the imams were asked by the captain and airport security to leave the plane so that they could be re-screened. At this point the imams refused to deplane. Following this the police were called and the men were removed from the plane and questioned for several hours. Everyone else was also deplaned and re-screened, and the flight took off three hours late.
Now the imams are crying victimization and blaming the incident on western "ignorance of Islam."
The imams have my sympathy for being in a situation in which it is difficult to fulfill their ordinary religious duties and wanting to do so anyway, but my sympathy ends there.
The fact is that you cannot act on a flight in America like you would on a flight in Saudi Arabia. America is not a Muslim-majority country, and the attacks on it by fanatics of your religion using commandeered airplanes are seared into American memory. You therefore cannot stand up on an airplane in America and start ritualized prayers in Arabic--a language the locals don't understand--and then refuse the orders of the captain and security to get off the plane and be re-screened--and then go around crying about victimization and blaming Americans for the situation.
The fact is that the Americans on the flight were needlessly alarmed and then forced to wait three additional hours before takeoff due to your arrogant, resentful, high-handed behavior and refusal to make even minimal attempts to adjust to the local culture.
"When in Rome, do as the Romans do" goes the old saying. You cannot expect the people of a country with a different cultural background to understand everything about your culture and accomodate all of it. You must make reasonable adjustments to the culture around you. The thing to do would have been to close your eyes and say your prayers silently in your heads, so as not to needlessly provoke and alarm people who had an entirely human reaction to the situation.
If I were in Saudi Arabia and made open displays of my Catholicism--behavior that would be entirely normal here in America--I would get a much, much worse reaction than what you guys got on the plane--and Saudi Arabia hasn't even been attacked by Americans. On the contrary, it's been defended by them.
You guys got off lucky by comparison. You created an entirely predictable situation by your unacceptably rigid and pig-headed behavior, and you have no grounds on which to act like crybabies afterwards.
You have my sympathy for being in a situation that doesn't allow you to fulfill your religious duties in the way you ordinarily would, and you have my respect for wanting to fulfill them anyway, but that's it. You handled the situation atrociously.
You created the situation. You needlessly scared and delayed numerous people. You get no sympathy for that.
You shouldn't get it from your fellow Muslims, either, because your disgraceful public performance only serves to make Islam look bad and reinforce western perceptions of it.
UPDATE: The NYT is reporting that there may be more to what the imams were doing than just evening prayers:
Detailed accounts of the incident varied. Witnesses, including a number of passengers and US Airways employees, said they heard some of the men making anti-American remarks and chanting “Allah,” first as they boarded the plane and then when led off, Mr. Hogan said.
Others said the men behaved strangely once on board, with some asking for seat belt extensions, the police report said. “I did not see they actually needed them,” one flight attendant wrote in a statement given to the police. “They were not overweight.”
Dr. Shahin disagreed, saying the extensions were necessary for their “big bodies.”
In another statement, a gate agent said some of the imams had been praying in Arabic in the gate area. “I was suspicious by the way they were praying very loud,” the agent said.
I'm wondering if the imams didn't deliberately provoke the situation so that they could play the victim card afterwards.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Islam | Permalink | Comments (95)
November 07, 2006
An Important Issue This Election Day
(Jimmy Akin)
Orson Scott Card has a really interesting and worthwhile article in which he writes:
[A]s a Democrat, for whom the Republican domination of government threatens many values that I hold to be important to America's role as a light among nations.
But there are no values that matter to me that will not be gravely endangered if we lose this war. And since the Democratic Party seems hellbent on losing it -- and in the most damaging possible way -- I have no choice but to advocate that my party be kept from getting its hands on the reins of national power, until it proves itself once again to be capable of recognizing our core national interests instead of its own temporary partisan advantages.
Objectively speaking, the current war and terrorism are not the weightiest issues in determining how one casts one's vote. Neither one of them kills remotely as many people as abortion does, and thus they should not be--as Card terms them--"the only issue this election day." But they are still issues of massive importance that deserve to be treated with the utmost seriousness and should weigh heavily on voters.
Card's analysis of the present situation--while lengthy--is carefully reasoned, insightful, and definitely worth reading in its entirety.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Islam | Permalink | Comments (18)
October 09, 2006
Cardinal Dulles On Dialogue With Muslims
(Jimmy Akin)
John Allen recently intervewed His Awesomeness Avery Cardinal Dulles on the subject of Islam and, in particular, Christian efforts from the Middle Ages onward to interact with his.
The cardinal displayed his customary perspicacity and frankness, and I thought the extracts of the interview that Allen printed were, though brief, well worth reading. I was particularly struck by this exchange:
Isn't there a . . . problem, in that some of the Muslims who do show up at dialogue meetings aren't representative of mainstream Islam?
Yes, that can be a problem. I remember back in 1968, there was a Christian/Muslim meeting at Woodstock that I attended. [Note: From 1966 to 1973, Dulles served as a consultor to the Papal Secretariat for Dialogue with Non-Believers]. One of the Muslims had obviously read a lot of Kant, and the whole thing struck me as a little phony. He had studied in the West, and clearly didn't represent the Muslim tradition in a normative way. That happens fairly often in these sessions. It's going to take time for real dialogue to develop -- there's an internal process that has to happen.
To return to Pope Benedict, would it be helpful if he put himself in contact more thoroughly with Islam as a living religion, meeting with representative Muslim leaders?
Certainly, it would be helpful, and it's definitely worth trying. I'm sure he would love to do that. I believe the thinking around the Vatican these days is that the dialogue with Islam should start with things like ecology, poverty, these sorts of common human problems, before we get to more sensitive theological questions. This is part of Benedict's emphasis on reason. His approach seems to be, let's go as far as reason can take us before we get to these other issues.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Islam | Permalink | Comments (28)
August 28, 2006
Ask An Ayatollah
(Michelle Arnold)
Catholic Answers' question-and-answer shows on "Catholic Answers Live" are very popular and so it can sometimes be difficult for listeners to get through to ask their question of an apologist on-air. If Catholic Answers' apologists find that more questions are asked than they have time and resources to answer on-air, one can only imagine how difficult it must be for the Grand Ayatollah Sistani to empty his question queue.
Really. Sayyid Ali Husaini al-Sistani, a Grand Ayatollah of the Shiite Muslims and a political activist in Iraq, has his own website on which he answers questions posed to him on topics ranging from abortion to zakat (obligatory charity).
(Nod to Katie Allison Granju for the link.)
Ordinarily, I would copy-'n-paste a selection from the site to give you a sample of the ayatollah's apologetics, but his site specifically warns that such reproduction is strictly forbidden. So, you'll have to log on to the site yourself to take a peek.
Posted by Michelle Arnold in Islam | Permalink | Comments (36)
May 15, 2006
The Burden Of History
(Jimmy Akin)
What happens at the beginning of a religion is important ot its later history. The path that the founder of a religion places it on is the path it will have a tendency to stick to--or return to--in at least a general way.
This is not to say that religions cannot become detached from their historical foundation. Much of modern Buddhism has very little relationship to the teachings of the historical Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama), and much of liberal Christianity has little relationship to the teachings of Jesus and the apostles.
But religions--or notable parts of them--tend to stay at least in the ballpark of what their founder intended.
This bodes ill for the future of Islam and its relationship to the rest of the world. If you want to explain much about the current state of the Muslim world, including its propensity toward jihadist violence, you need look no further than the fact that Muhammad was an Arabian warlord. The mindset of an Arabian warlord was stamped on Islam at its inception, and it has shaped the subsequent history of Islam in ways too numerous to count (at least in a blog post).
In an ideal future, a way will be found to wean Islam away from its violent impulses, but even if that proves to be possible, it will not be easy. The stamp of the Arabian warlord will be hard to erase, and not just regarding the use of violence, but in related areas, such as the way a warlord uses money.
HERE'S AN INTERESTING ARTICLE CONTRASTING MUHAMMAD AND JESUS ON THE USE OF MONEY, VIOLENCE, AND POWER.
(CHT: Southern Appeal.)
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Islam | Permalink | Comments (11)
May 05, 2006
Stickin' It To Al-Jazeera!
(Jimmy Akin)
This happened a piece back, so some folks may have already seen this, but
PEEP THIS AMAZING VIDEO OF ARAB-AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIST WAFA SULTAN ON AL-JAZEERA.
She really tells it like it is!
And has a ton of chutzpah!
CHT to the reader who e-mailed.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Islam | Permalink | Comments (11)
April 26, 2006
Hammer Into Nail
(Jimmy Akin)
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a freaky scary dude. He's a true religious zealot who's theology is likely to lead to world war if he gets his way.
I mean, liberals back in the 1980s often tried to portray Ronald Reagan--a mild Presbyterian--as if he were an apocalyptic visionary, but Ahmadinejad is the real deal!
He's said and done things that suggest that he is a divine messenger who is preparing the way for the return of the Hidden Imam--Shi'ite Islam's semi-Messianic child figure, who is believed to have been in hiding for the last thousand years but who will return in connection with an apocalyptic conflict.
The former executive editor of Iran's largest daily newspaper (who now lives in Europe) has an interesting article spelling out Ahmadinejad's religious vision and how it plays into the current Iranian nuclear situation.
EXCERPTS:
Last Monday [now the Monday before last], just before he announced that Iran had gatecrashed "the nuclear club", President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad disappeared for several hours. He was having a khalvat (tête-à-tête) with the Hidden Imam, the 12th and last of the imams of Shiism who went into "grand occultation" in 941.
According to Shia lore, the Imam is a messianic figure who, although in hiding, remains the true Sovereign of the World. In every generation, the Imam chooses 36 men, (and, for obvious reasons, no women) naming them the owtad or "nails", whose presence, hammered into mankind's existence, prevents the universe from "falling off". Although the "nails" are not known to common mortals, it is, at times, possible to identify one thanks to his deeds. It is on that basis that some of Ahmad-inejad's more passionate admirers insist that he is a "nail", a claim he has not discouraged. For example, he has claimed that last September, as he addressed the United Nations' General Assembly in New York, the "Hidden Imam drenched the place in a sweet light".
Last year, it was after another khalvat that Ahmadinejad announced his intention to stand for president. Now, he boasts that the Imam gave him the presidency for a single task: provoking a "clash of civilisations" in which the Muslim world, led by Iran, takes on the "infidel" West, led by the United States, and defeats it in a slow but prolonged contest that, in military jargon, sounds like a low intensity, asymmetrical war.
According to this analysis, spelled out in commentaries by Ahmadinejad's strategic guru, Hassan Abassi, known as the "Dr Kissinger of Islam", President George W Bush is an aberration, an exception to a rule under which all American presidents since Truman, when faced with serious setbacks abroad, have "run away". Iran's current strategy, therefore, is to wait Bush out. And that, by "divine coincidence", corresponds to the time Iran needs to develop its nuclear arsenal, thus matching the only advantage that the infidel enjoys.
The author goes on to predict that Iran will feign just enough compliance with the U.N. to stave off a military attack for the next two years, so they can run out Bush's term in office. Then, with a new, weaker-willed president in office, it'll be full speed ahead.
We'll have to see whether they pursue that strategy or whether they really are hell-bent-for-leather crazy on their nuclear program.
What the author doesn't go into is something that we've brought up before here on the blog: Bush knows (or should know) that no matter what happens in Afghanistan and Iraq, if he leaves office without stopping Iran from getting the Bomb then his presidency will be viewed as a dismal failure. It doesn't matter whether they get the Bomb after he leaves office or not. He will be viewed as someone who (like Clinton) allowed a horrible external threat to fester and grow due to his indecisive action. He'll even be viewed as someone who hamstrung himself with a foolish venture into Iraq when the real threat was Iran.
It doesn't matter whether that's fair or not, that's how it'll be perceived.
So the question is: What will Bush do if the Iranian government tries a play-for-time strategy?
Will he drive the hammer into the nail?
Only time will tell. In the meanwhile,
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Islam | Permalink | Comments (47)
April 06, 2006
JP2 And The Quran
(Jimmy Akin)
A reader writes:
I had never heard you address this on your show or Blog – though I’m certain you are familiar with it and have covered it before. But what gives about the story of JPII kissing the Koran?! I’ve seen it mentioned enough times by serious Catholics to accept this must have happened. However, I don’t know the context of this event or any other details so I can only wonder what our late Holy Father might have been thinking… Your thoughts?
This question has come up over the years, and I know that I've addressed it on the show (though I don't have the faintest idea in what episodes), but I don't seem to have done so on the blog, so here goes. . . .
First, I've reprinted the famous picture of the event above so that people can see what is being talked about.
Based on the picture alone, I would not be sure what is happening. The book is ornate and could be something other than the Quran. From the looks of it, it could be a book of the gospels.
However, the former Chaldean patriarch--Raphael Bidawid--was present at the meeting where the event occurred, and in an interview with the press service FIDES, he said the following:
On May 14th I was received by the Pope, together with a delegation composed of the Shi'ite imam of Khadum mosque and the Sunni president of the council of administration of the Iraqi Islamic Bank. There was also a representative of the Iraqi ministry of religion. I renewed our invitation to the Pope, because his visit would be for us a grace from heaven. It would confirm the faith of Christians and prove the Pope's love for the whole of humanity in a country which is mainly Muslim.
At the end of the audience the Pope bowed to the Muslim holy book, the Qu'ran, presented to him by the delegation, and he kissed it as a sign of respect. The photo of that gesture has been shown repeatedly on Iraqi television and it demonstrates that the Pope is not only aware of the suffering of the Iraqi people, he has also great respect for Islam [SOURCE].
What, then, is one to make of the event?
It seems that there are a number of possibilities:
1) The FIDES news agency misquoted the patriarch.
2) Patriarch Bidawid was mistaken about what happened. It was not the Quran but something else.
3) John Paul II kissed the Quran but didn't know the nature of the book he was kissing.
4) John Paul II kissed the Quran and knew that this is what he was doing.
I would love to think that either option (1), (2), or (3) was the case, but I have no evidence that any of them was the case.
The most likely one of the three, to my mind, would be (3), because so far as I know, John Paul II was not an Arabic speaker and may not have understood the nature of the book that he was being presented with.
People shove all kinds of books into the pope's hands at audiences, and if the pope was under the impression that the thing to do with a gift in Iraqi culture is to kiss it as a sign of respect to the one who gives the gift then he might have kissed it reflexively, not even understanding the nature of the book.
While this is possible, I think it likely that an interpreter explained the nature of the gift that was being given on this occasion. This still leaves the possibility that the pope kissed it as part of Middle Eastern politeness rather than as a gesture of respect for the book itself.
I have heard claims that in some Middle Eastern cultures that this is a typical gesture of respect for one giving a gift, but I have asked Chaldean friends of mine whether this is the case in Iraqi culture and the answer was a definite "No." "The pope put his foot on the neck of all Chaldeans with this action" was the response I was given. (Just to make things clear, putting your foot on the neck of someone is a bad thing in Iraqi culture.)
Still, the pope may have been under the mistaken impression that this was the appropriate thing to do when receiving a gift in their culture. He can't be an expert on every culture in the world, and he could get this wrong.
Or maybe he didn't.
Maybe he knew it was the Quran and kissed it anyway, not as a customary gift giving response, but for some other reason.
What might that reason be?
It certainly wouldn't be that he believes in Islam or believes that Islam is on a par with Christianity. If he believed either of these two things then he (a) wouldn't be the earthly head of the Christian faith and (b) wouldn't have approved the publication of Dominus Iesus, which asserts the salvific universality of Jesus Christ and the Church.
Any attempt to represent him as thinking one of those things doesn't even get out of the gate.
So what might he have been thinking?
We're only speculating here, but two things spring to mind as what JP2 might have been thinking:
1) The Quran does contain some elements of truth (as well as grave elements of falsehood) and he might have wanted to honor the elements of truth it contains.
2) Showing respect in this way could foster world peace and interreligious harmony.
Of these two, I would conjecture that the latter would have been uppermost in John Paul II's mind, though the former may not have been absent.
John Paul II was a man who was enormously concerned with world peace and interreligious harmony. As a young man he lived through the horrors of World War II, which had a permanent effect on him and his generation and their views about war and peace.
As a mature man he lived through the Cold War that repeatedly brought the world to the brink of nuclear disaster, and this also had a permanent effect on him and his generation and their views about war and peace. The constant threat of nuclear warfare hung particularly heavily over Europe--which would have been the chief battleground in a conflict between the Soviet Union and the West--and (particularly on the heels of WWII) it deeply impressed the "find peace at any cost" message on his generation.
As a result of the Cold War, the nations of western Europe were forced into an alliance (NATO) whereby their centuries-long enmities (as between France and Germany) had to be suppressed for the sake of common survival. Negotiation became the key to survival in western Europe, and the same message was driven home to those in Eastern bloc countries, such as John Paul II's native Poland.
By letting the US shoulder the main burden for the military defense of Europe (during and after the Cold War), many Europeans of John Paul II's generation absorbed the idea that negotiation was paramount and could solve virtually any problem. It wasn't until the events of the Global War On Terror that this idea began to be seriously called into question many in European circles.
As a result, as a man of his generation, John Paul II--for the best of motives--may have overestimated both the need for and the utility of gestures such as the one exhibited in the Quran-kissing event.
If the former pontiff did understand that the gift was a Quran and if he wasn't under the impression that kissing a gift was a standard response in Iraqi culture then I would suppose that he did so out of a desire to foster peace and interreligious harmony, but it would still have been a mistake to my mind.
The Quran, whatever elements of truth it contains, also contains venomous attacks on the divinity of Christ and on Christian doctrine and these make it inappropriate for the Vicar of Christ to kiss it under any circumstances.
John Paul II also may not have been attending to the gravity of the false elements in the Quran. Even if he knew them, he may not have been thinking about them and may have acted on the spur of the moment, without fully thinking through his action.
Fortunately, the infallibility of the pope and the indefectibility of the Church do not extend to such actions. A pope is not attempting to make anything remotely like a dogmatic definition in an act of this nature. And so, however misguided the action may have been and however good the motives for it may have been, it would constitute an error that does not touch upon papal infallibility or ecclesial indefectibility.
It would be one of the mistakes that all fallen humans are heir to, even the vicars of Christ.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Islam | Permalink | Comments (279) | TrackBack
April 03, 2006
Mother Theresa: Non- Favorite Daughter
(Jimmy Akin)
Mother Theresa is most famous for her work in India. If (really, when) she is declared a saint, she will be known as "St. Theresa of Calcutta." But she wasn't a native of India, she was a native of Albania, which at the time was a Communist country with a majority Muslim population.
Now there's controversy in Albania over plans to build a statue of Mother Theresa:
SHKODER, Albania (Reuters) - Muslims in Albania’s northern city of Shkoder are opposing plans to erect a statue to Mother Teresa, the ethnic Albanian Catholic nun in line for elevation to sainthood by the Vatican.
The dispute is unusual for Albania, where religion was banned for 27 years under the regime of dictator Enver Hoxha and where religious harmony and mixed marriages are the norm. Seventy percent of the population are liberal Muslims, the rest are Christian Orthodox and Catholic.
But Muslim groups in Shkoder rejected the local council plan for a Teresa statue, saying it “would offend the feelings of Muslims.”
“We do not want this statue to be erected in a public place because we see her as a religious figure,” said Bashkim Bajraktari, Shkoder’s mufti or Muslim religious leader. “If there must be a statue, let it be in a Catholic space.”
CHT to the guys at LGF, who wryly quip:
Maybe it would be easier for everybody if some sheikh somewhere just made a list of things that don’t offend the feelings of Muslims.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Islam | Permalink | Comments (28) | TrackBack
March 29, 2006
Growing Up
(Jimmy Akin)
I've been meaning to blog about Abdul Rahman, the Afghani convert to Christianity who was imprisoned for his faith and threatened with the death penalty.
(First, please indulge the language nitpicker in me for a moment as I point out that the /h/ in his second name is not silent. His name is pronounced /RAH-man/ with an audible expulsion of air at the end of the first syllable. Rahman is an Arabic word that means "merciful." I don't know if Mr. Rahman is a speaker of Dari or Pashto or another language, but his second name seems to be a loanword from Arabic.)
Now for actually serious matters:
I'm pleased to report--as you likely already know--that the charges against him have been dropped, albeit on a technicality. The wave of Western pressure on the Afghani government has worked--so far.
But the struggle is not over, since Mr. Rahman's safety must be secured, and if they just let him loose on the streets then he'll be killed in short order by fanatical Muslims.
He has now applied for foreign asylum, and Italy has offered it. Other countries are expected to offer it as well.
The larger issue here is that we have a victory in the process of getting Muslims to behave like civilized human beings. Sure, there are plenty of zealots who are willing to off Mr. Rahman in a heartbeat, but the Afghani government has realized that it needed to cave on this one if it didn't want to alienate the West, upon which it is significantly dependent.
Good.
Muslim countries need to learn that they can't have it all their own way.
When children learn this fact, we call it "socialization." Right now what the Muslim world needs is a massive series of lessons in socialization.
I've already pointed to the need to shame Muslims for unacceptable behavior in their culture, just as children need to be made to feel shame when they have done something unacceptable so that they internalize the drive not to do it again.
The cartoon riots and the vandalism and violence and killings that they resulted in were an example of this. They are something that the Muslim community should feel ashamed of.
So is the treatment of Mr. Rahman.
It's high time that the West get off its cultural relativist hobby horse and say to the Muslim world: "Some behaviors are simply unacceptable, and you should feel ashamed if you commit or tolerate them. Grow up and clean up your act."
The kind of cultural relativism that has infected many in the West is itself a sign of immaturity. It's a kind of culturally adolescent phase.
You ever notice how teen agers latch on to cultural relativism as a way of undermining the idea that anything is really wrong--so that they can justify the things that they want to do that are wrong?
It's when you grow up and really have to take responsibility for yourself that you set aside both the self-centered tantrums of childhood and the kind of self-centered rationalizations that characterize adolescence.
The present confrontations with Muslim tantrumhood may help many in the West grow out of their cultural adolescence.
So we may both get a lesson in growing up.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Islam | Permalink | Comments (121) | TrackBack
March 22, 2006
The Italian Fashion Industry Gets Religion!
(Jimmy Akin)
Not ours. Not the traditional Italian one. But religion, nevertheless.
An Italian clothing company has now designed jeans specially designed for Muslims.
This is NOT a joke. It's real.
The jeans are designed to make Muslims more comfortable when doing their daily prayers.
In a flash of inter-religious sensitivity, the company has named the line "al-Quds" jeans, which in Arabic means "Jerusalem" jeans.
That's sure to please Hamas and the PLO.
It'll probably be a bit less popular with our Jewish friends.
It's also weird because, if the jeans are meant to make Muslims more comfortable when they pray and you want to name them after a city then you'd think the designer would want to name them after the city toward which Muslims pray: Mecca.
In that case they ought to be called "al-Makkah" jeans.
Oops!
Maybe naming jeans after someone's main holy city would be religiously insensitive or something . . . even a provocation and a desecration.
Now why is my Spidey sense for double standards tingling?
Y'know, I have this horrible feeling that Ann Coulter is going suggest an advertising slogan along the lines of "Al-Quds! The perfect jeans to go with your new suicide belt!"
But that would be wrong. For all the obvious reasons.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Islam | Permalink | Comments (12) | TrackBack
February 24, 2006
About That New Approach On Islam . . .
(Jimmy Akin)
Some quotes:
"If we tell our people they have no right to offend, we have to tell the others they have no right to destroy us," Cardinal Angelo Sodano, the Vatican's Secretary of State (prime minister), told journalists in Rome.
"We must always stress our demand for reciprocity in political contacts with authorities in Islamic countries and, even more, in cultural contacts," Foreign Minister Archbishop Giovanni Lajolo told the daily Corriere della Sera.
Pope Benedict signaled his concern on Monday when he told the new Moroccan ambassador to the Vatican that peace can only be assured by "respect for the religious convictions and practices of others, in a reciprocal way in all societies."
"Enough now with this turning the other cheek! It's our duty to protect ourselves," Monsignor Velasio De Paolis, secretary of the Vatican's supreme court, thundered in the daily La Stampa.
"The West has had relations with the Arab countries for half a century, mostly for oil, and has not been able to get the slightest concession on human rights," he said.
Bishop Rino Fisichella, head of one of the Roman universities that train young priests from around the world, told Corriere della Sera the Vatican should speak out more.
"Let's drop this diplomatic silence," said the rector of the Pontifical Lateran University. "We should put pressure on international organizations to make the societies and states in majority Muslim countries face up to their responsibilities."
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Islam | Permalink | Comments (66) | TrackBack
February 22, 2006
A Beef-Eating Surrender Monkey
(Jimmy Akin)
Certain elements in the French population have been derisively termed "cheese-eating surrender monkeys," but the surrender monkey disease can also be found across the channel.
The author is Martin Jacques, who--despite is French-sounding name--is actually British. He's also the former editor of Marxism Today and has been described as an "embittered British Stalinist."
I was intrigued into reading the article by its headline: "Europe's contempt for other cultures can't be sustained." As a member of a culture that has been regularly the object of European contempt, the article was natively interesting to me.
The author makes a number of valid points, but I was shocked to realize just how much of a surrender monkey the author is.
Jacques writes (excerpts):
Is the argument over the Danish cartoons really reducible to a matter of free speech? Even if we believe that free speech is a fundamental value, that does not give us carte blanche to say what we like in any context, regardless of consequence or effect. Respect for others, especially in an increasingly interdependent world, is a value of at least equal importance.
If European societies want to live in some kind of domestic peace and harmony - rather than in a state of Balkanisation and repression - then they must find ways of integrating these minorities on rather more equal terms than, for the most part, they have so far achieved. That must mean, among other things, respect for their values. Second, it is patently clear that, globally speaking, Europe matters far less than it used to - and in the future will count for less and less. We must not only learn to share our homelands with people from very different roots, we must also learn to share the world with diverse peoples in a very different kind of way from what has been the European practice.
By the end of this century Europe is likely to pale into insignificance alongside China and India. In such a world, Europe will be forced to observe and respect the sensibilities of others.
Regardless of what good points he makes, the fundamental message that comes through from Jacques is that Europeans should simply acquiesce to their demise, they should allow their free speech rights to be abridged in deference to the sensibilities of others, they should offer more and more accomodations to foreigners who they should continue to allow into their lands, and they should simply be prepared to go quietly into the night as a civilization.
I'm sorry, but while I'm all for self-restraint in the exercise of free expression and not giving offense to others needlessly, this kind of civilizational surrender is simply unacceptable.
No matter what its flaws have been historically or what they are presently, the world is better off with a non-Islamicized Europe than with one living under sharia.
Let's hope that most Europeans are made of sterner stuff than this gentleman is.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Islam | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBack
February 20, 2006
A New Tack On Islam?
(Jimmy Akin)
When Cardinal Ratzinger, who had openly complained about the Vatican bureaucracy in interviews, was elected pope, it was widely expected that he would shake up the Roman curia and reform it. This may well be an agenda item of his, but so far ther hasn't been a major overhaul publicly announced.
What he has been doing is transferring certain people in a slow, deliberate manner, and these transfers have led to widespread speculation about the significance of the moves. For example, when the secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments (the man under Cardinal Arinze) was transferred, it was widely regarded as a sign that the man was unsuitable for his position.
Now the president of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue (the body responsible for dialogue with Muslims, Buddhists, etc.) has been transferred from his position and made nuncio for Egypt.
What does this mean?
John Allen suggests that it's a break with the approach that has been taken toward Islam in recent years. Many at the Holy See have taken an over-conciliatory approach to Islam that has failed to appreciate the challenges the Church and western society faces regarding Islam. Since being elected pontiff, B16 has shown himself willing to call attention to the need for Muslims to reject violence and terrorism, which is already a shift in emphasis, and the transfer may be more of the same.
Allen writes:
It [the transfer]'s certainly not a question of personality. Nobody dislikes Fitzgerald, who is universally admired for his graciousness, his work ethic and his content-area expertise. He is an Oxford-educated expert on Islam, probably the best mind working on Christian-Islamic relations among the senior leadership of the church.
Yet within the Roman Curia, Fitzgerald is -- rightly or wrongly -- identified with what was seen by some as a "soft" approach to Islam under John Paul II. That line was never fully embraced by senior figures who advocate a policy more akin to "tough love." One example is Cardinal Camillo Ruini, the pope's vicar for Rome. These officials desire good relations with Islam, but also a more robust capacity to challenge and critique Islamic leaders, especially on issues of "reciprocity" -- the idea that if Muslim immigrants benefit from religious freedom in the West, Christians should get the same treatment in Islamic states.
It's a view that to some extent Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Benedict XVI, shared while at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. In that sense, Fitzgerald's transfer could be interpreted as a choice for a somewhat different approach.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Islam | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBack
February 09, 2006
The IslamoKlan Meme Spreads
(Jimmy Akin)
Blogger Christopher B. Wright has picked up on what I wrote the other day in The Muslim BrotherhoodKlan--and drawn a cartoon about it!
He also adds commentary at the end of the cartoon, starting with some text that may clear away an important misunderstanding:
I suspect that someone, somewhere, is going to look at this cartoon and decide that I am equating Islam with the Ku Klux Klan. Which is a wholly irrational reaction to have, unless you also believe that KKK and Christianity are exactly the same thing. That would be a very peculiar position to take given Dr. Martin Luther King’s profession (he was a Baptist minister), but I suppose it could be done.
It would perhaps be more accurate to say that I am equating a specific group within Islam with the KKK. A group that uses violence and terror in order to advance a political agenda, a political agenda that hides behind the justification of faith.
So it seems the IslamoKlan meme is starting to spread.
As Montgomery Burns would say: "Exxxxxx-celent."
Maybe other bloggers will consider adopting this meme.
Let the shaming continue!
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Islam | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBack
February 08, 2006
The Shaming Has Begun
(Jimmy Akin)
The last couple of days I've been pointing out the disgraceful and violent behavior of many Muslims in the protests over the Danish cartoons.
In fact, people have been dying in the protests. As many as 10 have been killed in Afghanistan--shot by crowd control officers.
Now the largest paper in the Islamofascist state Iran--with whom we're going to have to go to war in the next year or so if their crazy president doesn't get reigned in by the mullahs (who at the moment seem to be egging him on to a Shi'a apocalyptic policy)--has ANNOUNCED A CONTEST TO MAKE FUN OF THE JEWISH HOLOCAUST.
AND THE EDITOR OF THE DANISH PAPER THAT STARTED THIS SAYS HE'LL PRINT THE HOLOCAUST CARTOONS.
BUT THERE ARE MUSLIM GROUPS CALLING FOR AN END TO THE PROTESTS AND DEATH THREATS.
There's even a group of Arabs who have set up a web site apologizing to Norway and Denmark for the shameful actions of their co-religionists.
CHECK OUT SORRYNORWAYDENMARK.COM.
The shaming has begun.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Islam | Permalink | Comments (9) | TrackBack
February 07, 2006
The Muslim BrotherhoodKlan
(Jimmy Akin)
See this man?
He's preaching a message of violence and hate.
He's also doing something else: He's wearing a mask.
This kind of thing is socially acceptable in many Muslim circles, as evidenced by the fact that it's quite common. It happens all the time. Whenever there are protests in the Muslim world (or even Muslims protesting elsewhere; this gentleman was protesting in London) people wearing masks show up preaching messages of violence and hate.
Can you think of anyone else who would wear masks while preaching messages of violence and hate?
That's right. The Ku Klux Klan.
They did this kind of thing all the time: Go out in public and preach a message of violence and hate while wearing masks.
And eighty years ago that kind of thing was socially acceptable in many American circles (and not just in the South).
But it doesn't happen that much any more. The Klan still marches or has rallies on occasion, but nothing like the frequency with which it happened in the first half of the 20th century.
Why?
Because American society turned against the Klan. Originally, when the Klan got re-started in the early 20th century, membership in it was a means of social advancement in many places, and many prominent citizens joined--including some who went on to become Supreme Court justices and U.S. senators. (Just as in the Muslim world participating in violent, hate-filled protests is a means of social advancement through proving one's fervor.)
But non-racist Americans hardened American society against the Klan. They made it a shameful, socially-unacceptable thing to belong to or participate in. And eventually, the Klan dried up.
Good for us.
Now something similar needs to happen in the Muslim world.
Muslims who don't support what Islamic Klansmen are doing at their rallies need to make it socially unacceptable in Muslim societies. So eventually, the Muslim Klan will dry up, too.
Muslims of good will must begin to shame their shameless brethren. They must do the same thing to the violent hate-mongers in their midst that Americans did to the violent hate-mongers here.
How might they do that?
Well, let's consider the fellow above and the fact that he is wearing a mask. Why is he doing that?
Presumably for one of the same reasons that Klansmen in America did:
- He is afraid to take personal responsibility in public for the message of violence and hatred he is preaching.
- He's connected with criminal activities and doesn't want to be identified.
- He wants to intimidate those he is protesting.
Point #3 can be dealt with by merely standing up to this form of bullying and criticizing it. If people start mocking the mask-wearers, it kind of neutralizes the intimidation aspect.
Muslims (and others) should therefore begin mocking the mask-wearers by pointing out that donning a mask is an admission that you are either a coward (point #1) or a criminal (point #2). Either way, you should be ashamed of yourself.
Muslims and non-Muslims alike should stand forth and say, "There is no reason to wear a mask at a protest. If you wear one, you shame yourself. Why would you wear a mask if you didn't have something to be ashamed of? What manly men you are, you mask-wearers. You're hiding your faces like women in burkhas."
This kind of shaming will not of itself fix the problem, but starting to shame those who participate in these kind of rallies is a good start--and an essential piece of the solution.
Let the shaming begin.
(I'll feature a Muslim group tomorrow who is helping to do this.)
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Islam | Permalink | Comments (18) | TrackBack
February 06, 2006
The "Religion Of Peace" Gets Offended
(Jimmy Akin)
I'm going to have more to say about this over the next few days, but let's get a few things down first.
In case you've not been following the news, a Danish newspaper published several cartoons of Muhammad that have enraged many in the Muslim world. Other European papers later reprinted the cartoons.
BASIC INFO HERE, WITH LINKS TO CARTOONS.
Now they are doing the usual protest thing, which in the Muslim context means flag and effigy burnings, hopping up and down and chanting, and violent threats being made. And not only threats. They've also taken to committing arson against various European embassies.
In other words, many Muslims acting so as to confirm every stereotype that's out there to the effect that Muslim culture is a vicious, self-centered, savage culture that is incapable of controlling its emotions.
This is a bad thing, and I'm sure that there are many Muslims who are aghast at what the protestors are doing--at the same time that they are offended by the Muhammad cartoons.
I don't have a problem with them being offended. Muslims consider Muhammad in some way sacred as a prophet of God, and Muslims hold depicting a prophet in art is a form of profanation. Anybody gets offended when what they hold sacred is profaned, especially if it is also held up to ridicule, as happened in the case of at least some of the Danish cartoons (such as depicting Muhammad with a bomb-shaped turban, though others cartoons did not depict him in a bad light, they just depicted him).
I don't believe in giving unnecessary offense to others, particularly when the offense concerns something as deeply felt as the subject of a person's religion. I know what that feels like, as I've had to bear countless insults to Christ and the Christian faith (and ones far worse than anything in the Danish cartoons, none of which depicted God Incarnate hanging in a jar of urine).
But when an offense is committed, I do believe in a proportionate response. Protesting is fine. Boycotting the people involved--like the paper and its advertisers--is fine.
But issuing death threats and destroying property is not.
That behavior is completely unacceptable, and this kind of bullying is the thing which one must stand up to.
After so many countless public angerfests in the Muslim world, it's easy to dismiss these as just more of the same, but people need to recognize what is going on here, and not just in the Muslim world.
UPDATE: LINK FIXED. CHECK OUT THESE MUST-SEE PICTURES OF MUSLIM PROTESTS IN EUROPE.
AND THIS STORY ABOUT EMBASSY BURNINGS IN THE MUSLIM WORLD.
AND THIS VIDEO BY MICHELLE MALKIN.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Islam | Permalink | Comments (54) | TrackBack
January 03, 2006
How To Build Bridges?
(Jimmy Akin)
The New York Times Magazine recently ran an interview with Saudi royal prince Alwaleed bin Talal that was remarkable in a number of respects (CHT: PowerLine). The interview concerned a $20 million donation that bin Talal has recently given to be used for Islamic studies at Harvard.
EXCERPTS:
Since you're said to be worth more than $20 billion, with major holdings in Four Seasons Hotels, Saks Fifth Avenue and Murdoch's News Corporation, why not give an unrestricted gift instead of such a narrowly focused one?
The gift is unrestricted!
No, it's not. It has to be spent on Islamic studies. Georgetown is renaming a center after you, and Harvard is naming a program after you.
Well, sure! The studies that concern me and fit my overall global vision - they're Islamic studies. As you know, ever since 9/11, we have been trying to bridge the gap between West and East.
Which has backfired at least once. You became notorious in New York when Mayor Giuliani declined to accept a $10 million donation from you to victims' families after you suggested that the U.S. was too friendly with Israel.
By the way, my check was taken to the bank and cashed. The problem was with my statement. I accepted that. Subject closed.
Subject reopened. The money was returned to you. Have you told Harvard, as you told the City of New York, that the U.S. needs to "adopt a more balanced stance toward the Palestinian cause"?
Let me tell you my position. We need to have good relations between the Arab world and Israel. When I sold my Plaza Hotel in New York, it was sold to Elad, which is an Israeli company.
Doing business with the citizens of a country is not the same thing as believing in that country's right to exist.
We are doing so many things to bridge the gap between Christianity and Islam and Judaism. For example, at my hotel in Paris, George V, you are going to find the Christian Bible, the Jewish Bible and the Islamic Koran in each single room.
That's a wonderful idea, but a luxury hotel in Paris is a long way from Saudi Arabia, where you could surely spend more money on Judeo-Christian studies.
Look. You have to understand that the population of Saudi Arabia has zero Christians.
That's the point. Why shouldn't you should spend your millions educating your own students before you educate kids at Harvard?
Obviously, it could be something we are contemplating.
[ . . . ]
You find the situation [in Iraq] very volatile still?
You have not done a very good job there. After 9/11, the U.S. needed to have a big revenge, and Saddam Hussein was a sitting duck. The U.S., with its huge ego, needed to have something big and dramatic.
That's not what I would call a bridge-building sentiment.
You have to understand. I am a friend of the United States, and these days to be in the Arab world and to be a friend of the United States is a liability. But nevertheless I say it. I am a great friend.
READ THE INTERVIEW. (Registration requirement)
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Islam | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBack
October 17, 2005
Religionists Of Peace Attack Pray-ers For Peace
(Michelle Arnold)
I usually try to avoid commenting on stories of terror committed in the name of Islam, because it is a delicate matter to avoid making generalizations that inadvertantly sweep in Muslims who would be horrified at the actions of terroristic co-religionists. That said, I can't help but take note that extremist Indonesian Muslims, acting in the name of a religion that many sincere Muslims believe is a religion of peace, recently attacked Indonesian Catholics praying the rosary:
"A group composed of Islamic extremists attacked Catholics praying the rosary on 11 October and threatened to burn down the house they were gathered in. The assailants, who claimed to be part of the Islamic Defender Front (Front Pembela Islam, FPI), invaded the house of one of the Catholic community belonging to the parish of Christ Salvator in western Jakarta.
"The men forced the marian prayer to stop immediately, threatening to burn the place down. They forced all those present including the Ketua Lingkungan (informal parish leader -- ed. note) to sign a declaration that they will not hold any more rosary gatherings in houses in the area.
"The attack has fuelled fears and apprehension among Indonesian Catholics who fear further possible hostile moves from the FPI. The front is also behind the closure of 24 home-churches in western Java."
Whatever the difficulties of modern American society, it's stories like this that make me grateful I live here rather than anywhere else. When you're praying your rosary, say a prayer for these Indonesian Catholics and thank God that you can do so in peace.
Posted by Michelle Arnold in Islam | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack
September 21, 2005
Robert Spencer Interview
(Jimmy Akin)
There's an interesting interview with Robert Spencer (a Catholic author on Islam) over on CatholicReport.Org.
EXCERPT:
Pope Benedict is taking a different direction from Pope John Paul II. I don’t think we will see Pope Benedict XVI kiss the Koran as Pope John Paul II did. I think Pope John Paul II tried to reach out to Islam but the Jihadists have made it clear that Rome and much of Europe will eventually be in Islam’s possession. I think Pope Benedict XVI realizes the seriousness of these statements.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Islam | Permalink | Comments (25) | TrackBack
September 20, 2005
Ente bTaref `Arabi?
(Jimmy Akin)
That's a question that some in St. Blog's need to be asking themselves. If they don't understand the question then the answer is "No" or, more properly, La'.
The question means "Do you understand Arabic?" and the reason that they need to ask themselves this is that some folks in the Catholic blogosphere have been freaking out over the fact that Cardinal McCarrick has (again) used the word "Allah" when referring to God in a speech made to a Muslim audience.
To tell you the truth, I wasn't happy when I saw the transcript of his remarks. Since it's vanished from the main server at CUA, here's what he said:
Remarks by Cardinal Theodore McCarrick Archbishop of Washington and CUA Chancellor
CUA Columbus School of Law
Sept. 13, 2005Your Majesty, King Abdullah
Your Majesty Queen Rania
Prince Ghazi
Members of the delegation from the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan
Father President
Distinguished guests from many faith communitiesDear friends all,
Your Majesty,
A few months ago, when I was privileged to pray for you on another occasion in this capital city, I asked Allah, the compassionate and merciful Lord of all the world, to bless you and to help you make your country a bridge across which all nations might walk in unity, fellowship and love. As I listened to your words today, I believe my prayer is being answered.
Indeed, the Amman Message of November of last year is a blueprint and a challenge not only to the great world of Islam, but to the whole human race. Your thoughtful leadership is a stirring invitation to all of us, especially to the people of the Book, the family of Abraham, who share so much and who are called to be brothers and sisters in God’s one human family.
You have taken to heart the words of Pope Benedict XVI when he addressed the Muslim leaders gathered with him in Germany last month and invited them all to join him in eliminating from all hearts any trace of rancor, in resisting every form of intolerance and in opposing every manifestation of violence. As you quoted in your splendid talk to us today, Pope Benedict called his listeners, in this way, to turn back the way of cruel fanaticism that endangers the lives of so many people and hinders progress for world peace.
Your Majesty’s call and that of the Holy Father are in so many ways the same. May Allah, the merciful and compassionate, continue to guide your steps along this noble path. May He guide and protect you, your family and your beloved country and may peace and justice come to all lands and all peoples through your efforts, your vision and your courage.
In the name of Allah, the merciful and compassionate God, we pray. Amen.
Now the reason I wasn't happy when I read this is that I knew it would be taken the wrong way by a great many Catholics. Had he asked me if he should refer to God in this way in this speech, I would have advised against it. I suspect that the confusion it would cause would outweigh whatever slight diplomatic edge it might give the talk.
But one should not freak out about this, as some in the blogosphere have been doing.
The fact is that Allah is simply the standard Arabic word for "God." It is used by Arabic-speaking Muslims and Christians alike--including Arabic-speaking Catholics. If you read an Arabic New Testament, it's going to have Allah where "God" appears in the English version. When they say prayers in Arabic (e.g., the Rosary) and the prayer refers to God, they use the word Allah.
I have more experience on this point than many English-speakers do since I have a lot of Arabic-speaking Catholic friends (Chaldeans, Maronites, etc.). I hang out with their priests, go over to their houses, spend time at their churches, go out to lunch with them, work on projects with them, discuss the situations in their home countries, inject snatches of Arabic into talks I give at their parishes, etc., etc., etc.
And this is just not a big deal.
Not only do Arabic-speaking Christians use Allah amonst themselves, they use it when speaking to Muslims . . . just like Cardinal McCarrick did!
So no freaking out is required over this issue. In fact, it's counterproductive.
Then there are some folks who see past the word "Allah" but are bent on committing the genetic fallacy, claiming based on dubious historical arguments that the word "Allah" is originally