 |
|
|
"I insisted that Christians claiming to have demons were making excuses for problems of carnality or personal lack of discipline; they were avoiding the tough part of growing in grace and maturing in a deeper understanding of Scripture. I overcame this theological prejudice...I discovered that the issue wasn't as conclusive as I had thought...I realized that those pastors and Bible teachers who had repeatedly reinforced the 'Christian can't have a demon' outlook had very little practical experience with the phenomenon"
-- Bob Larson
|
|
| |
The Wisdom of Benedict XVI:1391 and 2006.
Posted on Tuesday, September 26 @ 13:52:19 PDT by Mick |
|
By Laurent Murawiec
Hearing pundits and spinmeisters opine that Benedict XVI had not mastered the skills of media management was a reminder that in the world of appearances, papier mâché figures usurp in surface what they lack in depth. Contrary to his detractors, the pope is dealing in the real world.
The leader of the world’s most ancient institution, one with an unbroken continuity that spans over two millennia, and a memory to match, took a stand with his report of the dialogue between Byzantine Emperor Manuel II and an “educated Persian” on he subject of Islam and jihad.
That dialogue occurred in year 1391. There is a context, which only ignoramuses could suspect the pope of not having taken into full account: in those years, the Ottoman Turks crushed and overran the Serbian kingdom, the Muslim warlord Tamerlane broke the back of the Persian empire and occupied it, the empire of Bulgaria was destroyed by the Ottomans and incorporated into their empire.
The Muslim jihad was threatening the whole of Christendom, and was devastating Muslim lands as well, such as the anciently civilized Persia. To broaden the perspective, add that in short order, the Islamicized Mongols were to besiege Moscow, crush a Hungarian-German army in Central Europe, occupy Bosnia, besiege, sack, and slaughter New Delhi, and take Syria — even before the 14the century expired.
Politics is theology diluted. The pope’s admonition to “be obedient to the truth” is the core of the civilization built by Jerusalem, Athens, and Rome. His mention of the Muslim doctrinaire of “Zahirism,” Ibn Hazm of Cordova (d. 1064) who, he recalls, went so far as to state “that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practice idolatry,” ought to be taken seriously — Ibn Hazm, after all, was a noted theorist of jihad.
Contrary to the naïve souls of unbounded cleverness, the pope is not trying to be nice, or to “sell” his doctrine like a Madison Avenue salesman. The dialogue he reports on takes place “in the winter barracks near Ankara.” There is a war going on. It is not a war “on terror,” it is a war on jihad and an Islam that has, for all practical purposes, throw its lot with the jihadis, or at least never clearly and practically distanced itself from jihad. The emperor wrote the dialogue “during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402.” Ideas have consequences. The denial of human reason and the denial of faith go hand in hand to promote inhumanity. The West cannot defend itself if it believes in nothing. “God is not pleased by blood, and not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature,” Benedict XVI reminds us — but what is Al Jazeera doing when it gleefully airs mass consumption snuff movies of jihadis beheading “infidels”? Jihad is the pathology of religion just as Nazism and Bolshevism were the pathologies of reason and modernity.
The irrational nihilism of modern jihad is what produces the torrents of blood spilled by the jihadis throughout the world. “We love death more than you love life,” they proudly proclaim. In promoting a culture of life, of faith and reason, the pope is boldly taking the moral and intellectual leadership that has been sorely missing in our response to the war declared on us on September 11.
— Laurent Murawiec is senior fellow at the Hudson Institute in Washington D.C., most recently the author of The Mind of Jihad.
|
| |
|
^^Go to Top -  E-mail to Friend -  Print -  View PDF -  Subscribe -  Comments RSS
Re: The Wisdom of Benedict XVI:1391 and 2006. (Score: 1)
 by Virgil on Tuesday, September 26 @ 14:15:10 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message) | Unfortunately, Eastern Europe, especially Romania took the brunt of the Ottoman Empire and violent attacks; it really was not as much about Christianity fighting for its survival as it was about people fighting to survive, so holding to the truth back then was more about the truth of surviving rather than theological discourse.
There was a debate back then (as it continues until today) over the extent of Ottoman effect on Christianity, and there is evidence to suggest that Turkish occupation allowed Christians to freely practice their faith...of course, often at the expense of turning over all your gold and possessions...and even young women.
Good article - Vlad Tepes (Dracula - nicknamed Satan - who was ironically a Christian) should also be mentioned in this context since he singlehandled held back the Turks from crossing north of the Carpathians for quite a while. |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
Re: Pope Repeats Historic Begging To The Emperor With Quote (Score: 1)
 by chrisliv on Tuesday, September 26 @ 17:28:31 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message) | Gee,
The above article seems to be Wash D.C. spin and distortion.
I think that a better representation of history and the reason Pope Ratzinger made his statement can be found in a recent Uri Avnery article via Gush Shalom or Zmag. And, I'll include a good portion of it with a link below.
Peace to you all,
C. Livingstone
----------------------------------------------------
...The struggle between the Emperors and the Popes played a central role in European history and divided the peoples. It knew ups and downs. Some Emperors dismissed or expelled a Pope, some Popes dismissed or excommunicated an Emperor. One of the Emperors, Henry IV, "walked to Canossa", standing for three days barefoot in the snow in front of the Pope's castle, until the Pope deigned to annul his excommunication.
But there were times when Emperors and Popes lived in peace with each other. We are witnessing such a period today. Between the present Pope, Benedict XVI, and the present Emperor, George Bush II, there exists a wonderful harmony. Last week's speech by the Pope, which aroused a world-wide storm, went well with Bush's crusade against "Islamofascism", in the context of the "Clash of Civilizations".
IN HIS lecture at a German university, the 265th Pope described what he sees as a huge difference between Christianity and Islam: while Christianity is based on reason, Islam denies it. While Christians see the logic of God's actions, Muslims deny that there is any such logic in the actions of Allah.
As a Jewish atheist, I do not intend to enter the fray of this debate. It is much beyond my humble abilities to understand the logic of the Pope. But I cannot overlook one passage, which concerns me too, as an Israeli living near the fault-line of this "war of civilizations".
In order to prove the lack of reason in Islam, the Pope asserts that the prophet Muhammad ordered his followers to spread their religion by the sword. According to the Pope, that is unreasonable, because faith is born of the soul, not of the body. How can the sword influence the soul?
To support his case, the Pope quoted - of all people - a Byzantine Emperor, who belonged, of course, to the competing Eastern Church. At the end of the 14th century, the Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus told of a debate he had - or so he said (its occurrence is in doubt) - with an unnamed Persian Muslim scholar. In the heat of the argument, the Emperor (according to himself) flung the following words at his adversary:
"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".
These words give rise to three questions: (a) Why did the Emperor say them? (b) Are they true? (c) Why did the present Pope quote them?
WHEN MANUEL II wrote his treatise, he was the head of a dying empire. He assumed power in 1391, when only a few provinces of the once illustrious empire remained. These, too, were already under Turkish threat.
At that point in time, the Ottoman Turks had reached the banks of the Danube. They had conquered Bulgaria and the north of Greece, and had twice defeated relieving armies sent by Europe to save the Eastern Empire. On May 29, 1453, only a few years after Manuel's death, his capital, Constantinople (the present Istanbul) fell to the Turks, putting an end to the Empire that had lasted for more than a thousand years.
During his reign, Manuel made the rounds of the capitals of Europe in an attempt to drum up support. He promised to reunite the church. There is no doubt that he wrote his religious treatise in order to incite the Christian countries against the Turks and convince them to start a new crusade. The aim was practical, theology was serving politics.
In this sense, the quote serves exactly the requirements of the present Emperor
Read the rest of this comment... |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
Re: The Wisdom of Benedict XVI:1391 and 2006. (Score: 1)
 by Islamaphobe on Tuesday, September 26 @ 19:53:11 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message) | "Contrary to his detractors, the pope is dealing in the real world," writes Murawiec. I agree completely with that statement except that I would capitalize Pope and use "with" instead of "in." The Pope has thrown down a challenge to Islam to allow a genuine dialogue between faiths. It is not likely to happen, and he probably knows it, because the Islamists cannot allow it to happen. They cannot allow it because a genuine dialogue would involve subjecting the Quran, the hadiths, the life of Mohammed, and the history of Islam to critical examination.
The notion of jihad as a personal struggle, as opposed to the concept of conquest of infidels by force, is a nice modification of Islamic doctrine, but we are only kidding ourselves if we believe that it is a core Islamic belief. I insist that the "mainstream" understanding of jihad is now, and always has been, a struggle to convert the world to Islam by FORCEFUL means. Don't be fooled when Muslims trot out the Sura holding that "there should be no compulsion in religion." That was issued by Mohammed when he was at Mecca and was superceded by later "revelations" when he was in Medina. Incidentally, I saw no mention of the doctrine of abrogation in the long piece that Chris inserted for our edification, but then I did not give it a close reading because I quickly concluded that it was full of holes.
As for "the people of the book," it is true that the Medina suras allow them the privilege of continuing to practice their faith after submitting to Islamic rule, but they are to "enjoy" second-class citizenship and pay the jizya, a poll tax imposed upon infidels. The extent of the "dhimmitude" imposed upon the members of other faiths has varied from time to time and from ruler to ruler, but the clear intent of orthodox Islam is to give powerful incentives to the dhimmis to ultimately convert to Islam. I call such discriminatory pressure forceful conversion. In any event, the principle of genuine freedom of religion has not been adopted in any country I know of that has a Muslim majority, including Turkey, Indonesia, or any other "democracy" in which such a majority exists.
What has been the Islamic world's response to the Pope's invitation to dialogue? More violence, of course. But at least I don't think the casualty toll this time around has been as great as when Newsweek published the false story about flusing the Quran down the toilet. Each time such an event occurs, the blinders are lifted from the eyes of more people in the Civilized World and the understanding of the true nature of Islam grows. We can hope that at some point a genuine dialogue may occur as the number of Muslims who recognize they have problems increases. So far, however, it appears that those "moderate" Muslims are a pretty quiescent bunch. Could it be that they are afraid? I think so. I also concede that there are some signs of hope in such countries as Afghanistan, Pakistan, Malaysia, Turkey, Indonesia, and even Iraq; but in ALL Muslim-dominated countries, the discrimination against and persecution of Christians and other minorities continues to be pronounced.
John S. Evans |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
Re: The Wisdom of Benedict XVI:1391 and 2006. (Score: 1)
 by Windpressor (Giddi_one) on Wednesday, September 27 @ 01:55:46 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message) | ******************
An Open Letter to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
September 6, 2006
Mr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President of the Islamic Republic of Iran,
Please allow me to introduce myself. My name is Joel Richardson. Actually this is not my real name, but rather a pen name that I use when engaging in interfaith dialogue with Muslims—a labor of love which has occupied me for the past several years. The reason that I use this pen name is because I have been issued some very specific Islamic death threats after a Muslim that I was dialoguing with converted to Christianity. The e-mail that I received essentially threatened that my head would be cut off and that my family would be killed. Since those days, I have continued to dialogue with Muslims in a spirit of peace and love, although I now have chosen to use this pen name. As such, I ask for your forgiveness for not fully revealing myself to you. I would very much like to do so. Nevertheless, it is my sincere hope that if this letter should miraculously find its way into your hands that you would consider what this little American Christian of no account would like to express to you.
...
...
...
Mr. President, in your letter to President Bush, you said this:
"I have no doubt that telling lies is reprehensible in any culture, and you do not like to be lied to."
Of course, while much of the world has never heard of the doctrines of Kithman or al-Taqiyya, as a Shi’a Muslim, you are most certainly aware of these terms, are you not? Certainly you are aware of the words of Imam Jafar Sadiq, the sixth Imam of Shi’a Islam who clearly disagrees with you about the reprehensibility of lying. In fact, he even states that Allah will dishonor anyone who tells the truth about certain elements of Islam:
"One who exposes something from our religion is like one who intentionally kills us."
"You belong to a religion that whosoever conceals it, Allah will honor him and whosoever reveals it, Allah will disgrace him."
I have also read from A Shi’a Enclopedia a specific definition of al-Taqiyya:
"The word ‘al-Taqiyya’ literally means: ‘Concealing or disguising one's beliefs, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions, and/or strategies at a time of imminent danger, whether now or later in time, to save oneself from physical and/or mental injury.’ A one-word translation would be ‘Dissimulation’".
So Mr. President, my first question to you would be the following: Would I be wrong to believe the words of your Imam and the words of your scholars by understanding that Shi’a Muslims are commanded to purposefully hide what they truly believe in order to mislead others as to the true nature of their religion, their "beliefs, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions, and/or strategies"? As a Christian I am immediately reminded of the words of Jesus who told his followers never to hide their religion:
"You are the light of the world. ..." Matthew 5:14-16
=========================
Continued to next comment ...
|
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
An Open Letter to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad part 2 (Score: 1)
by Windpressor (Giddi_one) on Wednesday, September 27 @ 01:59:37 PDT
(User Info | Send a Message) | continuing ...
**********************
Mr. President, to the vast majority of the people of the world, religion and deceit are simply not compatible concepts. Basic human intuition exposes such as completely contrary to the divine nature. God does not lie, nor does he ask his followers to lie or hide the truth. In short Mr. President, how could any religion that claims to emanate from God—who is pure light and truth—ever actually command and promote deception toward non-believers and outsiders?
And even more importantly, Mr. President; you are a Shi’a Muslim. In light of the doctrines of Kithman and al-Taqiyya, how can anyone not question the truthfulness of anything that you say to those of us outside of the Shi’a faith? How do the people and the leaders of the world not know that you are simply utilizing al-Taqiyya in an attempt to deceive us?
...
...
...
Mr. President, I would like to be as frank and as honest with you as I can. What thoughts come to your mind when you think about such men as Adolph Hitler, or Saddam Hussein? History has judged these men as both pawns of the devil and failures, but a far worse judgment awaits both of these men when they face their Creator. Surely you would not desire to be found in the company of such men on the Day of Judgment?
Mr. President, I read your invitation issued just today calling the people of the West to Islam. You also said that anyone who declines such an invitation would have a bad future. Mr. President, I would like to now also invite you to become a Christian—a follower of Jesus. I would also like to explain to you why I must decline your invitation to Islam and why you should accept my invitation.
...
Read complete letter here:
An Open Letter to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
========================= |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by Islamaphobe on Wednesday, September 27 @ 06:10:23 PDT
- by Windpressor on Wednesday, September 27 @ 10:01:12 PDT
| 
|
