Saturday, August 09, 2014

Save Us, O Lord

Syria, Iraq, Jordan,  Iran, Lebanon, Egypt, Libya, Nigeria, Sudan, Uganda, Kenya, Somalia; there the body of Christ is torn apart. I really cannot bear to look at the bodies of children and the suffering of so many. This video was sent to me with the request I post it by the Coptic Orthodox wife of a reader; no bodies, just the anguished plea of a mother for her abducted daughter.

Can we still continue to dialogue with Islam, when so much suffering, so much blood is being spilt?
We have heard of the Pope's distress at this suffering, he as asked for prayers for those who suffer but hasn't himself addressed the suffering of our brothers and sisters. Can we really continue with the dialogue set up in the last century, it is no longer 1960 or 1970?

"Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."
Murderers continue to murder whilst the effete swap smooth words.

And what is Eccleston Square doing?


JARay said...

Just what was it that emeritus Pope Benedict said about Islam? Wasn't it something along the lines of asking to be shown anything good which Muhammed added to humanity?
Benedict was excoriated for quoting it but anyone like me simply added "How true! How true!"

Nicolas Bellord said...

JARay There is a good article on this in Wikipedia at:

It is notable that BXVI thought that the Emperor had said something too brusquely. The relevant text of BXVI's talk is:

In the seventh conversation edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that sura 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion". According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur'an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness, a brusqueness that we find unacceptable, on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached". The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood — and not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats… To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death

viterbo said...

Spade for a spade, chip for a chip, satan for a satan. satan = that creepy little antichrist who spent/spends every bit of hate (read - time we goobahs give him)he has left promoting 'abrahamic' religions (poor Abraham) before sinking into the PIT of his own making trying to turn Christ's own into sewer-sympathizers --- not unexpected/prophesied.

"Woe to thee, Corozain, woe to thee, Bethsaida. For if in Tyre and Sidon had been wrought the mighty works that have been wrought in you, they would have done penance long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. Luke 10:13

Nicolas Bellord said...

I now see that The Bones has posted a fuller version of Pope Benedict's speech at:

It also links to an article in to-day's Telegraph recounting the then Cardinal Bergoglio's reaction to the speech which is very telling.

But what an extraordinary video you have pointed us to, Father. As far as I could tell there was no call for vengeance from the Christian side in stark contrast to the muslim clerics.

John Nolan said...

'And what is Eccleston Square doing?' What it's always done.

I daresay they are working on ++Vin's next attack on the govt's welfare reforms.

And while Christians are being slaughtered by Muslim fanatics, stand by for tomorrow's Bidding Prayers in parishes up and down the land: 'We pray for peace and justice in Iraq and Gaza. Lord hear us ...'

God help us, more like.

Si incertam vocem det tuba, quis parabit se ad bellum?

parepidemos said...

Fr. Blake,

Although Islam is a major religion in several parts of the world, the almost insurmountable difficulty is that neither the Sunni nor Shia branches have anything which would remotely count as a central authority figure.

However, there needs to be dialogue at whatever level is possible, and we must work towards local or national Islamic leaders to condemn the violence, such at the one issued at the end of July by the International Union of Muslim Scholars (all Sunni)

"The International Union of Muslim Scholars condemns the forced expulsion of the Christian brothers of Iraq from their homes, cities and provinces. These are acts that violate Islamic laws, Islamic conscience and leave but a negative image of Islam and Muslims."

We should encourage more Islamic groups to speak out; to end dialogue would serve no positive purpose. Western governments also need to put pressure on the likes of the Saudis who have supported ISIS. We are reaping the results of the US-UK led invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Tereze Avila said...

Jary, another blog reminded us that, look:

Oliver Nicholson said...

This might possibly be of interest ?

Sadie Vacantist said...

'And what is Eccleston Square doing?'

Inviting Tony Blair to lunch at the Venerable English College?

Jacobi said...

Islam is a violent religion, born, established and spread by violence in its first years.

It has repeatedly assaulted the Christian West over the centuries and today continues an advance into Western countries by means of massive immigration, and in its own regions and borders, by the attempted elimination or suppression of other religions

There have been times when Islam has been quiet but only when met with equal or superior military power to its own.

The Secularised West has in the last century chosen to ignore or even befriend Islam and the Church in a spirit of false meekness has chosen to compromise with it.

Both were making a grave mistake and the results of this are now becoming obvious.

Joe Potillor said...

Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI was a prophet on his Ragensburg lecture, it should be re-read and absorbed.

Long-Skirts said...

Joe Potillor said:

"Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI was a prophet on his Ragensburg lecture, it should be re-read and absorbed."

In 1990, Lefebvre was convicted in a French court and sentenced to pay a fine of 5,000 francs when he stated that, as a result of Muslim immigration into Europe, "it is your wives, your daughters, your children who will be kidnapped and dragged off to a certain kind of places as they exist in Casablanca".

Oh, how I remember people laughing at this Archbishop making such a statement, here, in America. I was at that time still reading about Archbishop Lefebvre and trying to learn as much as I could because I deeply sensed THIS was a true Catholic Prelate...oh, dear, Lord thank you for never leaving us orphans! Merci Marcel!

Gervase Crouchback said...

"Sancte Michael Archangele,
defende nos in proelio;
contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
Imperet illi Deus, supplices deprecamur:
tuque, Princeps militiae Caelestis,
satanam aliosque spiritus malignos,
qui ad perditionem animarum pervagantur in mundo,
divina virtute in infernum detrude.

Sadie Vacantist said...

B16's lecture at Regensburg (which his should never have delivered in the first place) was a thinly veiled critique of Anglo-Saxon policy towards the Middle East and Mesapotamia. He was providing a philosophical wrap to what Reagan had said about the region in the 1980's: "I don't understand the Islamic World."

There is an irony that Reagan didn't understand the region. Ratzinger, in common with many Germans, simply doesn't get the Anglo-Saxon world whose media agencies lead an orchestrated attack on the 2006 lecture.

Sixupman said...

Msgr. Lefebvre was possessed of great experience of working within areas having a marked Muslim orientation. I paraphrase his remarks, made in a sermon in Preston some years ago: 'they are lovely people until they obtain power - then watch out'. Wisdom arising from experience.

BJC said...

This is a good documentary on Islam - 'What the West need so know about Islam'. Robert Spencer who'll you'll see in it a few times is a member of the Catholic Answers team:

Lynda said...

Rod George said...

Father, you ask can we still dialouge with muslims and where is Eccleston Square.To the first question I would say no.Muslims are quite happy to dialouge when in the minority but once in the majority it is plain for all to see how they behave.They see those in the church who are committed to interfaith talks as " useful idiots " in their quest for conquest and domination. The remit given to the church was to go and teach all nations and not to seek common ground with its enemies.
Where is Eccleston Square? Well the bishops are keeping quiet probably because they do not want to upset their cosy interfaith relationships. As successors of the apostles its time for them to be true to their calling and vigoursly speak out for catholics and other christians being persecuted by muslims.If that is going to upset their interfaith gatherings then so much the better. Is there not one bishop who is prepared to break ranks and speak out?
Our Lady of Fatima. Pray for us.

Adulio said...

Anyone else find parepidemos' response depressing?

Fred Brown said...

A few years ago I took a course on Islam at a Catholic institution. It was disgraceful. It was nothing more than an apologia for Islam. One of the other students spoke to me during the break, “Did you hear the priest giving the course constantly referring to the Koran as, “Our Koran”. I missed it, but heard him repeat this in the following classes. When challenged about the atrocities that are being carried out in the name of this religion we were informed that the crusades and inquisitions were equally brutal – A blatant lie. When someone challenged the priest giving the course that the Koran orders atrocities i.e., God orders the killing of unbelievers that refuse to convert, he replied, “If you read Numbers and Kings you’ll see the same thing.” Someone pointed out that what happened in these books was part of an unfolding narrative, one that concludes with Jesus and ‘Turn the other cheek’. He said that the brutality is carried out by a handful of extremists. When asked why they are not more vocally condemned by other Muslims he replied that they are, although he could point to no evidence to back his claim. Then someone said that Muslims can never openly condemn another Muslim to a nonbeliever.

Vat II “They [Muslims] worship the same one God” Even though this God mocks the most Blessed Trinity, amongst other things? How he be the same God if he says things like, “Jesus is NOT the son of God but only a messenger”? How can the same God say that Jesus did not die on the Cross and say that we were saved by Jesus’ sacrifice on the Cross, at the same time?
My point is that Hell will freeze over before you hear anything for Eccelston Square. Same peas, same pod.

JARay said...

Certainly Archbishop Lefebvre was prescient when he warned the West about Islam's assault. I do like John Nolan's bit of Latin...If a certain voice has sounded the trumpet, who will prepare himself for the war?
There is an increasing number of voices calling out for help and showing us the result of the savagery of Islam.

Nicolas Bellord said...

I have been reading Pope Francis's speech to the Pentacostalists at Caserta again. He says that the Holy Spirit brings diversity but the devil brings division. I initially understood that this diversity could be represented by the different orders of religious etc whilst division was where the doctrines of the Church were denied and people went into schism.

However on rereading I am not at all sure that that is the correct interpretation. First of all I wondered whether he would mention the devil as the cause of schism when he was addressing schismatics. Then I see his second mention of the devil is his suggestion that the devil caused Catholics to persecute Pentacostalists. Incidentally he is not clear as to what persecution he is referring to. Others have suggested he is referring to something that happened during the fascist regime of Mussolini in Italy but he leaves it vague - as so often in his talks.

I am led to think therefore that he wants to reach out to other religious groups at all costs. At the same time he sees Catholics as being the cause of these continuing "diversities" or at the very least allowing the devil to prompt us to have reservations about schismatics and causing evil divisions. This perhaps explains his very severe criticism of those Catholics he regards as ultra-orthodox such as the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate. He sees anyone who asserts the truth of the doctrines of the Church as an embarrassment and we must not bang on about abortion or gay marriage.

He gives the impression of wanting to ignore doctrinal differences and indeed to reduce the Catholic faith to his ten tips for nice living. One can now see why he received such support from Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor at the time of the conclave as another person who puts such delusive store by ecumenism in the continuation of ARCIC.

I can see the Ordinariate as being an example of "reconciled diversity" but I think Pope Francis has quite other ideas. Surely I would have thought the greatest hope of ecumenism is with the Orthodox Church and I seriously wonder what they think of this apparent watering down of Roman Catholicism in the pursuit of a delusionary ecumenism.

BJC said...

Just came across this debate between Robert Spencer (and Dave Wood) with Omar Bakri, who got kicked out of the UK, and Amjen Choudary who can be seen frequently stirring things up on the streets of London. It's makes for fascinating viewing. Omar Bakri comes across as incoherent and with nothing to say for himself, and Amjen Choudray is little better. Robert Spencer and Dave Wood again again, pose questions which the pair of them evade and just try to bs their way out of. At no point do they offer any coherent arguments of their own, and at times they looked a bit stunned at what's going on.

Jacobi said...

@ Nicolas.

What is to be made of our Pope?

So many things he reportedly says are not in accordance with Tradition or the Magisterium. And so we have the “what the pope really meant” brigade. Increasingly as an ordinary cradle orthodox Catholic, I don’t now what to make of it.

But I do know is that the Pope’s job is to teach the Truth of the One True church on Earth the Catholic Church and that it is also our duty, as educated Catholics in so far as we can, to bring all into it, particularly, say, family and friends.

Diversity in liturgy is fine. But in belief it is wrong. The Ordinariate are Catholic. I would happily partake in their Mass, as I would incidentally, to an FXXP Mass.

But doctrinal diversity stems from Christ who made Peter and his Successors Keeper of the Keys, to uphold Truth. Therefore those who reject Truth are in schism.

Attendance at protestant services for family reasons is OK. Participation is not

It is the clear duty of all Catholics to bring protestants and others in to the Catholic Church. To say or do otherwise is contrary to the teaching of the Church as expressed Mortalium Animos by Pius XI, an encyclical addressed to the whole Church and requiring the assent of all Catholics.

Gungarius said...

What we are seeing is the result of western interference since the collapse of the Ottoman empire the ends of which are greed for oil not the well being of the people. Just as when we rubbed German peoples noses in it after world war 1 they turned to a nutjob radical in dispair so have the middle east. Who even remembers that Iran once had a democratically elected prime minister. The UK fomented a military coup in 1953 to depose him. The junta made the Shah absolute monarch (ie dictator). Why? because he wanted to audit Anglo Iranian oil company to check Iran were not being ripped off and when the oil company refused threatened to nationalise it. You reap what you sow. (Wikipedia - Operation Boot

gemoftheocean said...

On the plus side, most protestants have stopped whining about the Crusades. I think they now realize "Maybe the Catholics had something there."

To quote Winston Churchill "The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men."

I've been so depressed these last weeks over all this. I did make myself look at some very graphic picutures, because it's a small way of standing witness. I'm very angry at Washington for being a Johnny come lately, and I blame most the Muslim-in-chief. Mr. Taquiyya himself barely bothers to hide it anymore. And it's disgusting he's encouraging the floodgates open to gang bangers from MS-13 and whoever else feels like waltzing across the board..but NOTHING for the genuine refugees from Iraq and elsewhere in the middle east who are being terrorist by these thugs. Comrade Zero is too busy golfing at Martha's Vineyard to be bothered.

Badum-tish! said...

Absolute tosh, Father. You embarrass yourself here in your anger and pity: 'Can we continue to dialogue with Islam'. This not only is confused syntax and grammar, it's hard to comprehend what you believe communication with an abstract group of ideas is. Or could be. From 'Christianity', again, about as disparate a bunch of ideologies as you could hope to find. 'Islam' is about as responsible for the current mess in the Middle East as your sock.

The following comments from a voracious bunch of bigots, bigots that don't even know the context our the Popes words at Regensburg.

You embarrass yourself, your position, your education and your parish.

Please try to think before posting!

Fr Ray Blake said...

Do you really consider nothing has changed?

John Vasc said...

Father Ray's post was both measured and accurate.

Even the most superficial reading of the Koran and footnoted Hadiths - not the nicey-nicey Penguin version, read the version of the Koran offered for sale at British mosques - makes it abundantly clear that Islam is certainly responsible for the aggression and terrorism, both in the Middle East, and everywhere else in the world where Islamists stir up trouble - from North Africa and Nigeria to Indonesia via Arabia, India, Pakistan, Central Asia, Malaysia and

Denial will not work.

As to being in thrall to 'dialogue' - as so many bishops are, with their passé passion for ecumenism - the present Pope was one of those who criticized Benedict XVI for his Regensburg speech, on the grounds that it 'threatened John Paul II's long and careful work of rapprochement with Islam'.

Yup, and that rapprochement has worked out so terribly well, with thousands of Iraqi Christians murdered, tortured and expelled by an islamist army determined to re-run the early centuries of islamic invasion.

And a mysteriously indifferent president of the US who cannot bring himself to do anything at all beyond the bare minimum.

John Nolan said...

It was unfortunate that some people with malicious intent took a part of Benedict's brilliant discourse on Faith and Reason at Regensburg out of context and cynically used it to stoke the fires of irrationality, bigotry and ignorance.

Fortunately senior Churchmen throughout the world lost no time in defending the Pope and pointing out what it was he actually said. There was one exception - the Cardinal Archbishop of Buenos Aires whose knee-jerk reaction sounded for all the world like a second-rate politician trying to score a cheap point against an opponent.

Such open and personal criticism of a reigning pope by a cardinal (and a Jesuit at that) is astonishing. It should have made him unelectable. Yet the cardinals who did elect him in 2013 were fully aware of his disloyalty and effectively rewarded it. Francis's recent admission that the strategy for his papacy was worked out before the conclave in meetings with like-minded cardinals is highly significant. I cannot help but think it bodes ill.

JARay said...

A couple of quotes:-
"bigots that don't even know the context our the Popes words at Regensburg."
"This not only is confused syntax and grammar, it's hard to comprehend..."
Do I laugh or cry?!
This must be a Troll on the loose!
I think that I'll just laugh!

Sadie Vacantist said...

Badum is correct. B16's lecture at Regensburg was a critique of Anglo-Saxon attitudes towards the Islamic World and not a critique of Islam per se. The comments here reflect the very arrogance which has worsened the political situation in the Middle East and to which B16 was drawing our attention.

Jacobi said...

As one who has studied aspects of Islam and its effects on European society since the seventh century, the considered, objective, conclusion I have come to, (in line with countless other knowledgeable men), is that it is a constructed heresy, the creation of a confused mind and that it has been a force of violent suppression both to the local cultures, and to the outer world, as it has spread.

It is a violent religion, commanding its followers to subjugate by whatever means are available to them, and that includes sooner or later violence.

The one thing it respects, or at least considers, is equal or superior force.

Now to come down to practicalities, we can dialogue with Islam, not as an ally as has been done by Western Secular powers in their oil seeking strategies, but by insisting that in the interests of all civilised peoples, they abstain from violence.

Sadly, they will only work if we dialogue from behind the sights of a gun. Nothing else will impress them.

And as for our remaining Christian communities in the Middle East, they too should be fully armed against Islam, as were the Lebanese Christians in the 70s civil war.

Your question, Father, your cry from the heart, is one that should have been considered decades ago, but we in the Church have been so diminished by the current mess, that sadly, we have taken our eye off the ball - with the usual consequences when you do that!

Nicolas Bellord said...

Sadie Vacantist: Could you please point us to the passages in the Regensburg speech which was "a critique of Anglo-Saxon attitudes towards the Islamic World"?

Further what is it in Badum's contribution that you find is correct? That all comments here come from bigots?

John Fitzpatrick said...

Isn't it fascinating to compare the way the Press and media reported the horrifying events in Gaza with the way they are reporting the slaughter of Christians by ISIS? And what conclusions do you draw?

Sadie Vacantist said...

@Nicolas Bellord

Even Wikipedia gets it right:-

“The lecture was claimed by many Catholic apologists to not be directed at Islam at all and the incendiary passages were purely circumstantial to the lecture's real intention, which was to counter the demotion of theology in the university environment in particular and of faith in a society plagued by postmodern relativism and irrationality in general.”

Included in this demotion of theology (or Godlessness) are the endless wars started by the Anglo-American nations as part of a “democracy building” project in the Middle East and Mesopotamia. JPII and B16 were implacable opponents of this project. In short, the USA is imposing godless democracy on traditionally theocratic societies. Cardinal Ottaviani opposed a similar project at the Second Vatican Council as advanced by the American John Courtney Murray (Dignitatis Humanae) and the brainwashed Karl Rahner. The latter’s country had been destroyed (“bombed to bits” to quote historian Norman Stone) in the same manner as Iraq would later be. Unlike Iraq and other Islamic countries, Germany succumbed to the “new” model as did the rest of Europe and much of the “democratic” World. The Church has collapsed in this time as the values of the “New Rome” have gained the upper hand. This Americanisation of our values is summed by B16 in the lecture:-

“In the Western world (America) it is widely held that only positivistic reason and the forms of philosophy based on it are universally valid. Yet the world's profoundly religious cultures (that can only mean the Islamic World) see this exclusion of the divine from the universality of reason as an attack on their most profound convictions. A reason which is deaf to the divine and which relegates religion into the realm of subcultures (privatisation of religion as in America) is incapable of entering into the dialogue of cultures.”

Badum-tish! said...

Nicholas Bellord: I didn't say /all/ comments. The rampant and unapologetic islamophobia vomited on this blog by certain individuals who think that the Saudi 'English translation' they've read is in any way accepted or even read by most Muslims is what I'm talking about. The people who think they're bizarre mental image of Islam or Muslims is in any way grounded in reality.

Analogy- can we talk to Christians now the Westboro Baptist Church and the Ku Klux Klan have revealed Christianity's true colours?

Father: nothing has changed, people have always been prone to mindless violence in the name of religion, surely? Genocide and religious persecution has been the order of the day for thousands of years, both there and here (Northern Ireland, anyone?) To judge a religion by the actions of a few people is (IMO) never a good idea.

In manus tuas, domine, and all that.

Jacobi said...

I agree with Badum-tish! completely.

You should never judge a religion by the actions of some of its members. It should be judged by the character, actions and teachings of its founder.

Damask Rose said...

Basically what Sadie Vacantist has said at 6:43 can be summed up as thus:

You can only fight Islam on Islamic terms.
[This is what the Western powers don't get.]

You can only really fight the Islamic faith with the Faith.

You need to have soldiers that are highly trained, specialised even, shock-troops, like the marines or SAS, unwavering in their allegiance to their Commander, each-other and their mission. With regards to the Faith, best to use a monastic order, that way they're not distracted or worrying about the wife and kids back at home. An advantage would be if you had some great cleric with an awful lot of clout supporting the troops, somebody like St Bernard of Clairvaux. In the meantime you'd have your military chaplains and lay brothers (general soldiers) who'd assist the crack troops. If you could throw in a brother like St Francis of Assisi, you're on a roll. Of course, the monastic troops would consider martyrdom a blessing as do their opponents, the Jihadists.

They're you go, fighting like with like.

Deus vult.

John Vasc said...

I have just re-read BXVI's speech -

SV - All the bits in brackets within your quotation marks are not parts of the Pope's speech at all, but have been written and added by somebody else (by you yourself, presumably.)

If we take out the bracketed material you have added, it is obvious that the speech was not at all what you claim it to have been, and on reading the entire speech it is clear that the interpretations you place in brackets are untenable.

BXVI's speech was about the place of reason in theology and the implied cultural clash with absolutist religions such as islam. He made no mention or critique of the US, nor of the anglo-saxon world at all.
"In the Western world" ("in der westlichen Welt") means in German precisely that, the western world, ie western Europe and its extended cultural reach.
For an academic historian the 'western world' goes back to the Roman and Greek civilizations, and for Germans it extends geographically as far east as the border with Russia - it implicitly includes Britain as well, but does not mainly refer to the British Isles or the US.
In referring to 'positivism' the Pope was clearly referencing the post-enlightenment European philosophical tradition (principally England, France, Austria and Germany) in which post-Kantian logical positivism grew and flourished during the 19th and early 20th centuries.

There is not even a faint, oblique hint of a reference in the speech to America, or to any wars except the islamic invasion of Byzantium. Pope B XVI is frank enough to have mentioned the war in Iraq if he wanted to. He didn't even indirectly.
As the Pope was aware, and as he knew his knowledgeable Regensburg academic audience was very well aware, the cultural resistance of the west to Islam is just as strong in Germany and particularly in Bavaria - even stronger, actually - than it is in America.

The Holy Father's speech in September 2006 had a much more obvious and recent trigger than 9/11 or the Wars in Iraq or Afghanistan: it was the Danish newspaper Mohammed cartoons published in Jyllands-Posten in September 2005, and the (largely fomented) anti-western riots and murderous violence that ensued worldwide. (Which rather proved the Pope's point about absolutist and aggressive islam combating western reason, but he was too tactful to say so.)

Benedict's conclusion was that in our contacts with (eg) islam we should be more confidently Christian, western, reasonable, rational:
' "Not to act reasonably, not to act with Logos [=Reason] is contrary to the nature of God" said Manuel II, following his Christian understanding of God, in response to his Persian interlocutor. It is to this great Logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures. To rediscover it constantly is the great task of the university.'

Lynda said...

The point is the mass-slaying of non-Muslims, and particularly, devout Christians, is in accordance with the principles and policies of the ideology of Islam.

Sadie Vacantist said...

John Vasc - I don't deny at all much of your interpretation but B16 returned to a similar theme at Westminster: the relegation of religion to the private domain. This is not a critique that can be levelled at the Islamic World but only at the West. For whom the ultimate and dominant expression of the post-enlightenment World is the USA.

You are right to assert that the Pope said that the West should be more confidently Christian in its dealings with Islam. That is not happening. America's dealings with the region are at the behest of a foreign power whose people rejected logos.

Nicolas Bellord said...

Badum-tish: You wrote about a "Saudi English translation" of the Quran not being accepted or read by most Muslims. Can you give an example of this? Are you saying the Saudi translation is inaccurate? Can you give an example of such a bad translation and then give what the correct translation should be?

The problem is people quote certain passages which are very worrying e.g: Allah in the Qu’ran identifies unbelievers as ‘the worst of creatures’ (Sura 98:6), and commands Muslims to slay pagans (Sura 9:5) and to fight Jews (who are by the way, considered the descendants of apes and pigs: Suras 2:65, 5:60, 7:166-167), and fight Christians until they are subjugated and paying the jizya (a ‘protection’ tax levied on Jews and Christians – Sura 9:29).

Are these examples of bad translation and how should they be understood?

I agree that man has been and is always prone to violence. You only have to read the Bible such as the Book of Joshua to see a cult of violence. Violence is the central problem and I believe that only Christianity has really tackled it properly viz: the sayings of Jesus Christ principally the commandment to love one's enemies.

I am afraid I see both Jews and Muslims as all too ready to use violence particularly excessive and disproportionate violence. In the end though I see only the teachings of Jesus as being a solution to the problem of violence. Of course many Christians have not lived up to this but on the whole I think Christianity has led to stable and peaceful societies although in the present climate of denigrating this Christian inheritance we may well lose our peaceful world.

Nicolas Bellord said...

Sadie V: John Vasc has responded very adequately to what you say was in the Regensburg speech. It really was only about the demotion of theology as the Queen of sciences - a theme that Newman had dwelt upon - and thus the demotion of reason. I think you extrapolated too far from that.

The Wikipedia article is indeed interesting as it recounts the reactions to the speech which were largely irrational. In our response to Islam and trying to tease out its real nature it is vital that we stick to reason.

Damask Rose said...

Dear Nicholas

Great commentary at 8:05.

"In our response to Islam and trying to tease out its real nature it is vital that we stick to reason."

Yes, indeed. But I think eventually through the use of reason, the Christian or Western mind will come to understand that their reasoning is totally diametrically opposed to Islamic reason.

Here is the brilliant reasoning of Major (Retired) Stephen Coughlin who completely refutes Pope Francis's statements with regards to Islam in his encyclical 'Evangelii Gaudium'. He also shows how Islam is using the Interfaith Movement against Christians (nod to Rod George @ 9:18).

(Video is one hour long though.)

Nicholas also says:

"I think Christianity has led to stable and peaceful societies although in the present climate of denigrating this Christian inheritance we may well lose our peaceful world."

Yes, absolutely. This is why you see that hardly any media coverage or governmental statements have mentioned the Christians plight in Iraq. Because if they blatantly stated that they were going to fight for or support the Christians in any way in Iraq, they would then have to acknowledge the Christians in their own countries in the US or Western Europe, be they Catholics, Methodists, Lutherans, CofE, Orthodox and so on. So it might mean that Obamacare ceases its determination for Catholics to pay for Contraception or politicians backdown from promoting homosex in schools or at least in Christian schools and so forth.

Reason will dictate that you either fight Islam or appease it. Hence we seem to be noticing a lot of appeasement across Europe. Muslims face a tiny fine if they kill a swan, or deface a WWI memorial, girls 'ask' for their rapes, Lord Abp Rowan Williams defends Sharia, police observe and do nothing while peaceful white demonstrators get beat up by Islamists and so forth.

The latest governmental appeasement comes from the Education Department in light of the recent Muslim Trojan Horse scandal in schools. Notice its called 'extremist' and the pc-ness is galling. No more Christmas or husband and wife as those terms are offensive to same-sex marriage. All in the name of 'British values'.

This is where eventually blind faith against blind faith comes in. Because either empty society will give Christians up to be slaughtered first or Christians take up arms.

This is where you have a statue of Our Lady of Lepanto on a ship's deck or where a Christian soldier would have to make a harrowing decision for the greater good whether to kill his son who is now a Janissary protecting an Islamic general.

But I think it's been a long game. I believe Islam has bided its time and been observing the weakening of Christendom for centuries. VII has totally denuded Catholic life and Catholics no longer believe as they once did.
The Holy Roman Empire's gone as has the Austro-Hungarian Empire, we've had Balfour at WWI and the establishment of the State of Israel.
But is it more ancient than that?
If it hadn't been for King Leonidas blind determination to fight Xerxes at Thermopylae, would Greece be Christian today? And what of Alexander's defeat of Darius III at Issus? One wonders what would have become of Iraq and Iran if Alexander had lived to old age? Though they left Greek influence, how long does it take to mould a civilisation?

Nicolas Bellord said...

Damask Rose: You mention Islamic reason. I think the problem is that there is no such thing; they have eschewed reason. I have heard it said that whilst in the Middle Ages the Islamic world was very advanced in science etc preserving the Hellenistic learning and eventually transmitting it to Europe there suddenly arose a fundamentalist attitude which said God and his creation were not subject to reason and this stopped Islamic civilisation dead in its tracks. One only has to look as to how Islamic societies are still stuck in the past whilst Christian Europe, believing that creation was rational, made immense strides in science.