ISLAMICA MAGAZINE: In an unprecedented move, an Open Letter signed by 38 leading Muslim religious scholars and leaders around the world will be sent to Pope Benedict XVI on Oct. 15, 2006. The letter, which is the first of its kind in several centuries, was a collaborative effort signed by such prominent figures as the Grand Muftis of Egypt, Russia, Bosnia, Croatia, Kosovo, Istanbul, Uzbekistan and Oman, as well as leading figures from the Shia community such as Ayatollah Muhammad Ali Taskhiri of Iran. The letter was also signed by HRH Prince Ghazi bin Muhammad bin Talal, the Personal Envoy and Special Advisor to King Abdullah II of Jordan. Western scholars have signed the document, including California scholar, Shaykh Hamza Yusuf Hanson, Professor Seyyed Hossein Nasr of George Washington University in Washington, D.C., and Professor Tim Winter of the University of Cambridge.Mark Alexander
The letter is being sent, in the spirit of goodwill, to address some of the controversial remarks made by Pope Benedict XVI during his lecture at the University of Regensburg in Germany on Sept. 12, 2006. The letter tackles the main issues raised by the Pope in his discussion of a debate between the medieval Emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an 'educated Persian' such as compulsion in religion, reason and faith, forced conversion, the understanding of 'Jihad' or 'Holy War,' and the relationship between Christianity and Islam.
The Muslim signatories accept the Pope's personal expression of sorrow and assurance that the controversial quote did not reflect his personal opinion. At the same time, the letter represents an attempt to engage with the Papacy on theological grounds in order to tackle wide ranging misconceptions about Islam in the Western world. Open Letter to His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI
Saturday, October 14, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
What does the future hold for the relationship between that which is Islamic and that which is non-Islamic? The same thing that it held for them in the past.
The spread of Islam was checked principally by countries that were able to fight back and defend themselves. That is what history tells you. Islam’s track record is one of war and conquest. Within 100 years after Muhammad’s death the Muslim crusaders carved out a huge empire that extended into southern France and Western China. Later, Muslim armies pushed throughout Eastern Europe and brutally subjected those peoples. They took those lands by force, killing and plundering those in their path. The European peoples had to fight to reclaim their lands and throw out the Muslim invaders.
You better expect this same track record for the future! When the Muslims feel themselves capable they will be violent. When they feel weak they will seek peace and work towards getting strong. They put into practice two contrasting principles commanded by the Quran:
When the Muslims are strong:
Therefore do not falter or sue for peace when you have gained the upper hand. God is on your side and will not grudge you the reward of your labors. (47:35)
When the Muslims are weak:
But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace. (8:61)
One of the difficulties in understanding Islam is that there are many rules for different occasions that can be applied. Hence, Muslims in the West will proclaim, "Islam is peace" while Muslims in the Mideast and Asia murder non-Muslims. It’s all the same Islam just different rules being applied for differing circumstances. Naive Westerners have always been easy to fool.
CASE IN POINT
In October 2004 a new video was released by Osama bin Laden. Details are found here: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041030/ap_on_re_mi_ea/bin_laden_tape&cid=540&ncid=716.
Osama bin Laden changed his usual lofty, sharply militant rhetoric to address Americans in a more conciliatory tone - though one tinged with threat - in his new video, dropped off at the Pakistan offices of Al-Jazeera television days ahead of the U.S. presidential elections.
He said the United States must stop threatening the security of Muslims if it wants to avoid "another Manhattan" and while he did not directly warn of new attacks, he warned: "There are still reasons to repeat what happened."
"Your security is not in the hands of Kerry, Bush or al-Qaida. Your security is in your own hands," bin Laden said, referring to President Bush and his Democratic opponent, John Kerry. "Any state that does not mess with our security has naturally guaranteed its own security."
What I read in this is what the article’s writer perceived: Osama is holding out an implicit olive branch to his enemies. Why? I’ll let Adam Gadahn answer, www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2004/10/28/20041028_151613_abct.htm:
Further claims: America has brought this on itself for electing George Bush who has made war on Islam by destroying the Taliban and making war on Al Qaeda.
Look at it from the Muslim’s perspective: America and her allies have destroyed the Taliban and wounded Al Qaeda. Afghanistan is lost, the Muslims are being watched and moved against in Europe, and even moderate Muslim states are fighting and killing the Muslim fundamentalists. The terrorist’s effort has been wounded severely. Hence Osama is implicitly asking for a "truce". Only naive and foolish Americans, like Mark Levine, would go for it: www.answering-islam.org/Silas/levine_truce.htm.
CONTEMPORARY TRACK RECORD: THE SEEDS FOR THE FUTURE
Let’s take a look at today’s Islamic track record and see what it holds for the future. Start with Pakistan. Historically, Pakistan received a great deal of foreign aid in many forms. Some of this was nuclear technology. The Pakistani government promised that they were in no way developing nuclear weapons. But they lied. They used the foolishness and naivety of Canadian benevolence, the cold war mentality of America, and the careless callousness of various European countries and secured all the pieces of the nuclear puzzle. You can read about it here: cns.miis.edu/pubs/reports/pdfs/9707paki.pdf, www.ccnr.org/myth_2.html.
To make matters worse they began to give nuclear weapon technology to other countries. You can read about it here: www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040308fa_fact.
Because they are motivated by the spirit of Islam, Pakistanis lied, developed, and then gave away nuclear weapon technology to other rogue states. Khan understands fully the power of the weapon and he wants his side to triumph.
What do the Muslims intend to do with nuclear weapons? What do you think? Have a look at what one of Iran’s leaders has stated. He is not the only Muslim leader to say such things (http://216.26.163.62/2001/me_iran_12_17b.html).
Iran would willingly engage Israel in a nuclear war because they feel they can withstand the damage. They are not concerned about their people, they are not concerned about their neighbors who will suffer the effects of nuclear fallout, they only want to destroy those they hate: those that can successfully withstand them. And make no mistake about it, after Israel, the Iranians would turn these weapons on someone else. These Iranian leaders are motivated by the same spirit that motivates the Pakistani scientists, government officials, et. al., this same spirit that drove Muhammad.
I’m an American citizen now. What does the future hold for America and the Muslims? This is what I think will happen: www.abrahamic-faith.com/silas/Destroying%20America.html.
There is a deep, dark, power that drives these Muslims. This power is more powerful than Muhammad.
Mazembe:
Welcome to this forum!
Thank you for your insights. By the way, I agree with your assessment. Nothing would convince me that Muslims have any long-term peaceful intentions. As you rightly say, Muslims are belligerent when strong, and 'peaceful' when weak. They are like chameleons: they change their skin colour according to their surroundings!
We only need to look at history to know what Islam really is. Muslims won't fool me! And they obviously don't fool you.
Again, thanks for your great insights. Come back again soon.
Fortunately, this Pope is far too brilliant and far too insightful to be fooled by these bloody, lying charlatans. Deceit is at the very core of Islam and this is a marvelous example that proves the point. Scholars, indeed! Since when have there been any legitimate scholars in Islam?
"Words, words,words, I'm so sick of words," sang Eliza Dolittle in My Fair Lady. Yes, I know, a trite and bit out of place when compared with the rarified atmosphere of His Holiness and all those Muslim scholars that shoot the breeze over our poor plebian heads.
They can debate "til the cows come home", but nothing will change as the practical application of Shari'a will always be to use violence as the most efficient way to impose Muslim norms on the rest of us and ensure the maintenace of those norms on those laggards that are dropping off.
If "there is no compulsion in religion" were really true, then Muslims throughout the centuries would not have cited the text as a pretext for their actions. Thus, the open letter is merely an example of misdirection, Kitman, and taqiyya, "holy lying".
I hope that astute Benedict does not offer up words that could be construed as an apology.
mazembe and eleanor, Great comments! Keep them coming!
Post a Comment