Muslims tell Pope: the future of the world is at stake

The "survival of the world" is at stake if Muslims and Christians do not make peace with each other, leaders of the Muslim world will warn Pope Benedict XVI, the Archbishop of Canterbury and all the Orthodox Church Patriarchs and other Christian Archbishops and bishops today. In an unprecedented open letter signed by 138 leading Muslim scholars from every sect of Islam, and published this morning on The Times website, the Muslims plead with Christian leaders 'to come together with us on the common essentials of our two religions.. The full story can be read in TimesOnline. The letter, to be published here soon via this site and to be rolled out around the world this morning in a series of press conferences beginning in Jordan, and supported by the Bishop of London the Right Rev Richard Chartres in London, spells out the similarities between passages of the Bible and the Koran. It is expected to be followed by a joint conference between Muslim and Christian world leaders at on "neutral" ground, such as at a university in the US. Meanwhile, Irene Lancaster has blogged the entire text of the Islamic expert Matthew Kuentzel's formerly-banned lecture at Leeds uni last night. Irene believes the letter is 'threatening' incidentally. And on the bright side, read this review of Peter Sanders' photographic exhibition of Muslims living in Britain today.

Bloggers commenting on this post include DogfightAtBankstown, who takes much the same view as the Bishop of Rochester, below, along with Leonardo's Notebook. Melanie Phillips regards the whole thing as slippery. And a Mr Embrey from Acton, who regards the whole online thing as 'much too modern for me', has called me on the telephone to ask why no bishops are quoting Jesus' indictments of 'false prophets'. (The admirable Mr Embrey apparently doesn't understand how much more technological determination is required to get past our switchboard than to get online.)

The Muslim scholars state: "As Muslims, we say to Christians that we are not against them and that Islam is not against them - so long as they do not wage war against Muslims on account of their religion, oppress them and drive them out of their homes." As most readers here will immediately recognise, the phrasing has echoes of the New Testament passage: "He that is not with me is against me" - a passage used by US Presdent George Bush when addressing a joint session of Congress nine days after 9/11.

Among the first to respond was the Bishop of Rochester, Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, a leading Anglican expert on Islam. We've now incorporated some of his comments into a piece for Online. He told me that he welcomed the document, but pointed out that for all the apparent similarities of the monotheistic faiths, Christians and Muslims do not actually believe in the same thing. 'Dialogue must be in the integrity of each faith, rather than on terms set by one,' he said. 'They speak of the unity of God. Christians want to uphold the unity of God but their understanding is not the same of the Muslim one. Christians understand God as the Father the source of all existence, the Word is the one through whom the creation comes into existence and the Spirit refreshes and renews creation. What the Koran condemns, we do not believe Whatever our doctrine of God there are fundamental issues that must be addressed, such as refugees fleeing because of their faith and because of persecution.'

He enlarged with a critique of the document that makes clear it is in for something of a rocky ride among interfaith experts and, well, everybody really.

'One of the first things is to welcome the fact that there are so many Muslim leaders who want to have some dialogue with religious leaders and others,' said Dr Nazir-Ali, born in Pakistan and with a Muslim family background. 'But what I would stress is that dialogue between partners must be conducted in the integrity of each faith. One partner cannot dictate the terms on which dialogue must be conducted. This document seems to be on the verge of doing that.'

He said the document appeared to be calling for dialogue on the basis of Muslim belief in the unity of God. Dr Nazir-Ali said: 'If that were the case, we would all be Muslim. I would say, we need mutual witness and learning as well as withess to faith. I am quite happy for Muslims to witness to me. But it is not a one-way street.'

He criticised parts of the document, which goes in great detail into Koranic passages which emphasise the unity of God. Dr Nazir-Ali said: 'One thing the document implies is that Christians have compromised their monotheism. It does this by implication, with all the business of saying we must agree that God is only none and not associated with partners, that we must not take others for Lord. It refers to various verses in the Koran which accuse Christians of taking Jesus and others as their Lord besides Allah.'

The verse the entire letter is based on, he said, is Koran 3:64. 'Say, "O followers of the scripture, let us come to a logical agreement between us and you: that we shall not worship except GOD; that we never set up any idols besides Him, nor set up any human beings as lords beside GOD." If they turn away, say, "Bear witness that we are submitters".'

(Barry Wood ministries has a helpful summary of the differences between the two Scriptures on this and other matters.)

Dr Nazir-Ali said: 'This verse says that if we are going to talk it must be on the basis that you [the Christians] are no longer associating others with God. What I would say to that is that Christians uphold belief in one God vigorously but our understanding of the oneness of God is not the Muslim understanding. We believe in God as source from whome everything is brought into being. Jesus is God's word and presence for us but is also human.'

In fact, the document does emphasise the humanity of Jesus, in line with Koranic teaching. Dr Nazir-Ali said: 'That is fine, but he is also God's presence for us. We believe in one God but how we believe in one God is not the same as how Muslims believe in one God. There is an implicit assumption here that what Muslims believe is normative and everyone else has to fall into line.'

He added that what the Koran condemns as false belief, such as the Koran's view that the Trinity consists of Father, Son and Blessed Virgin Mary, is not believed by Christians in the first place. Dr Nazir-Ali said: 'Please fine out from us what we really believe. That is one of the purposes of dialogue. Ok, we may disagree about the nature of God but there are many other important areas of dialogue as well. There is justice, compassion, fundamental freedom, freedom to express beliefs, perecution of peoples. All these are matters of dialogue. Only one of them, the need for peace, is mentioned here.'

Comments

[Alan Marsh]

The problem is not the willingness of Christians to live in peace - one of the primary injunctions given to the Church by Jesus - but the very apparent failure of islam to move on from its internecine feuds of its first fifty years, and the imperialism of its founder.

The daily atrocities in Iraq are the result of muslim conflicts. The president of Iran has made it plain that he intends to remove Israel from the middle east. In the radicalised mosques of Great Britain, preachers are urging the overthrow of our society.

What would be really exciting would be to see a conference of all the islamic groups mentioned, to put their own house in order.

[Chris Gillibrand]

Such inter-religious dialogue has a long history.

In the seventeenth century, up to the death of the later in 1666, under Shahs Abbas I and II, dialogues among Ayatollahs, Catholic missionaries and Armenian priests were organized in Iran . The Shah, the first minister, and high dignitaries of the court all participated

In 1976 a delegation of cardinals and bishops and other experts met in Iran and dialogued with Shia Moslems in an atmosphere of relative understanding. This was followed in 1977 by the visit of an Iranian delegation to the Vatican. The discussion ended deciding on two possible topics for a continuation of a Shia- Christian dialogue: 1) the dialogue of man with God in the Islam-Christian tradition; and 2) the fundamental rights of man in the light of Christian and
Islamic revelation.

In 1979, the Iranian revolution broke out.

And finally,

Of Jesus’ own power to cast out devils
Luke 11.23 and Matthew 12 .30
He that is not with me, is against me; and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth.

The disciples wished to forbid a man from casting out devils in the name of Jesus.
Mark 9.39
He that is not against us is for us
Luke 9.50
Forbid him not; for he that is not against you, is for you

[Geoffrey Smith]

When I first began to study the Bible, I read something about motes and beams. Is there a similar reference in the Koran?

[Tom Jackson]

'The Muslim scholars state: "As Muslims, we say to Christians that we are not against them and that Islam is not against them - so long as they do not wage war against Muslims on account of their religion, oppress them and drive them out of their homes." '

Although not accepted by many contributors to this blog, even to those of us who live in the West, the religious dimension that resides within the deepest recesses of our being, is powerful and influential on the way we think and behave.

In those societies that are less developed and sophisticated than we enjoy, religious belief and faith can dominate and control every aspect of an individual's existence - none more so than those who follow the Prophet Mohammed.

We all need to understand this when considering and evaluating developments such as Islamic terrorism and this open letter from the Muslim scholars.

Islamic teaching and belief is ambiguous, double meaning and even allows for blatant deception if it furthers the protection and spread of Islamic influence throughout the entire world.

The extract quoted above appears to be reaching out in peaceful reconciliation but clearly allows for the terrorism against Israel to continue and for Islamic aggression to be justified should any situation be identified by Islamic leaders to be what they determine - as waging 'war against Muslims'.

It is very likely that - for the reasons they give - the 'survival of the world' is at stake.

At some time in the future, Israel will be attacked and many nations such as the US and the UK will be drawn into the conflict. If nuclear weapons are used by a country such as Iran, our survival will certainly be threatened. And we should have no doubts about it; Islamic nations want Israelis driven into the sea. There is no solution which allows the State of Israel to exist in the region.

Alternatively, Islamic terrorism could occur in the West on a scale that will far outstrip anything that has happened so far, possibly involving weapons of mass destruction.

Alan is right; as Christians we want to live in peace but we have to accept that whatever happens, there is no freedom in Islam to achieve that objective until The Prophet Mohammed is worshipped by everyone.

[MaryCunningham]

The US is an uninvited occupier in two Muslims countries, one a failed state, one viable until the Americans invaded. The American--and British, thank you Tony Blair!--invasion of Iraq precipitated an awful civil war resulting in the death of tens of thousands of Iraqis (conservatively maybe thirty thousand). The US knew there was a high likelihood of this happening--did they want the chaos to happen?--and they invaded anyway. "Stuff happens" said Mr Rumsfeld casually.

Israel, an American protectorate, has occupied the Muslim West Bank for over thirty years. No occupation is beneficial, but this one seems unduly harsh. Less than two years ago, in a gross overreaction to a border incident, Israel brutally bombed Muslim civilians in southern Lebanon.

Now we are on the brink of seeing either Israel or the US 'pre-emptively'(not aggression, mind you, 'pre-emption) cluster bomb Iran with all the misery that will unlease.

We are seeing some flurries in the propaganda war, but winning 'hearts and minds' in the west (an outmoded concept anyway) solves nothing. Sentiment needs to be turned in the Muslim world, and we are far from that, very far indeed.

I'm not optimistic. What beast slouches towards Jerusalem, waiting to be born?

[Alan Marsh]

Indeed, Geoffrey, the church remains divided, but at least it is committed to the peaceful pursuit of ecumenism.

Although sadly there are still those whose notions of the papal office are remarkably similar to those whose ambition is a universal caliphate.

[Kieran]

I think it's difficult to take this too seriously, so long as Christians are being persecuted in Islamic countries. Make access to the church and Bible more easy and we'll start to believe you.

If Christians in the Middle East had the same freedoms Muslims have in the west, this would be a start. Perhaps the first people they send their letter to should be the Saudi and Iranian rulers, et al?

A difficulty for Islam is that at its core it has examples of violence from its "prophet" and his successors which make it a viable option to attack non-believers and so-called "infidels".

As for common ground, NO Pope can rescind the truth of our faith, that we pray for peace, but we also preach Christ crucified.

[Dr. Denis MacEoin]

Apropos the reference to Shi'i-Christian dialogue, it's worth noting that Shi'ism is more analogous to Christianity than Sunnism. Shi'i theology (or theophany) makes Muhammad, Fatima, and the twelve imams (especially Husyan) mazahir ilahi or manifestations of the divine, and in some writers this reaches the point where total divinity is attributed to these figures, something that is complete anathema to Sunnis. The Husayn tradition has parallels with the salvific meaning of Christ's crucifixion: when he dies a martyr on the plain of Karbala, Husayn's blood, like the blood of Christ, has the power to save man from his sins and to assure him paradise.

There is nothing that I can recollect in the Qur'an about motes and beams, though there are other anaolgues with (mainly apocryphal) Biblical stories and sayings.

Bishop Nazir Ali should have gone a bit further. The Qur'an itself is extremely defamatory of the Christian belief in a Trinity, a belief which is condemned outright as shirk, or joining partners with God. The concept of God's unity (tawhid) is much more complex in Islam than in Christianity, and has major implications for the Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia. The Wahhabi founder, Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab wrote a short book called Kitab al-Tawhid, in which he eliminates every possibe belief, action, thought that may compromise in any way God's oneness. That, for example, is why the Wahhabis have demolished Sufi and Shi'i shrines (because people make pilgrimage to them or pray there for intercession) and have knocked down most of the historical parts of the two holy cities, Mecca and Medina, for fear graves of the Prophet's family and companions, or houses associated with them may become places of adoration.

Bear in mind that Wahhabi and other Salafi writers often remark that inter-faith dialogue is a waste of time, because Islam is the true faith, and there is nothing to discuss with unbelievers.

[Peter Bridgman]

I think it's a bloody cheek if these 138 mullahs are giving the Pope a lecture on world peace.

Didn't the last Pope tell Bush and Blair -- in no uncertain terms -- not to invade Iraq?

[Dr. Irene Lancaster FRSA]

This is my comment on the Muslim threatening letter to Christian leaders:

http://irenelancaster.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/10/muslims-send-th.html

They are no doubt extremely worried at the Archbishop of Canterbury's volte face and his not only acceptance of Israel's right to exist but his positive attitude to the Christian groups in Britain and elsewhere who contributed so much to early Zionism in the 19th century and then to the Balfour Declaration which gave the Jewish people the hope that they might return to their ancient homeland, if they wished.

In this, the ABC showed himself capable of being a statesman in the league of the Dalai Lama, who has always supported the right of Israel to exist and defend itself.

This morning, a leading Christian interfaith activist in Britain wrote asking me if it was true that - as he had heard last night from a member of the newly-established Woolf Institute for Muslim-Jewish relations - that Judaism is closer to Islam than to Christianity.

To him I said as I say to you, the definition of the Trinity has changed throughout the ages. But 'by their fruits shall they be known'. The largest and most magnificent part of the New Testament is pure Judaism. This includes the Sermon on the Mount; the injunction to 'love your neighbour as yourself' and even to 'love your enemy', because this is in practice what Jews have done throughout the ages.

It appears from Ruth's link that Muslims do not even believe that we are made in God's image. This is one of the basic tenets of Judaism, equal in the eyes of some to the injunction to 'love your neighbour'. These are the two major teachings of Judaism. For only if we are in the image of God can we truly love our neighbours as ourself.

And of course, anyone who loves their neighbour and is in the image of God cannot possibly become a suicide bomber. It is totally against the law of God and of monotheism.

Thank you so much for posters who understand this and have seen this very menacing letter for what it is: a real threat to the future of civilization as we know it, for it excludes religions such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism and Judaism, from which latter both Christianity and Islam originally arose.

What Christians really need is more dialogue of a proper, informed sort with Jews rather than an apology for dialogue with Muslims, who need to put their own house in order, enter the 21st century and revise their understanding of the Koran, as some of them did in the Middle Ages (all in my book, by the way!)

[Tom Jackson]

"Sentiment needs to be turned in the Muslim world, and we are far from that, very far indeed".

From the moment in the 7th century when through The Prophet Muhammad, Islam was conceived, the path towards world domination through jihad was established.

It wasn't going to happen overnight and the involvement of foreign nations in areas which the Muslims claim for Islam didn't help but even if the Islamic nations had been left alone, the situation we find ourselves in today could not have been avoided.

Anyone who believes that foreign policies which appease countries such as Iran or public relations exercises to try and find common ground will result in peace and harmony is delusional. In a different age and in circumstances far more obvious than those we experience today, Neville Chamberlain was exposed to such a lesson.

Jihad is a long term project; it could take centuries but it is happening. To quote the Koran:

'We will we show them Our signs in the universe, and in their ownselves, until it becomes manifest to them that this (the Qur'an) is the truth.’ (Surat al-Fussilat (41), ayah 53).

The commentary attached to this quote on a popular Muslim website continues:

"Jihad is used to safeguard the mission of spreading Islam. This would guarantee peace and the means of implementing the Supreme Message. This is a responsibility which the Muslims bear, this Message guiding mankind to truth and justice."

This followed an earlier statement in the article:

"The Muslims in war had only one concern and this was to make the name of Allah Supreme, there was no room at all for any other objective".

And those people living in New York on September 11th 2001 and those of us in London on July 7th 2005 have now had some experience of 'Muslims in war'.

[emanuel appel]

a letter from America

To all,

Why is the question raised without including Israel? Because the Arab respects only military might and posturing.

Israel's continual holding out of the olive branch makes the Moslem contemptous and never interested in offering the same proposal to Jews.

[MaryCunningham]

At its heart the conflict in the Middle East is a political issue not a religious one. Christianity vs Islam, Islam vs Judaism, any religion vs atheism have not much to do with the division of Palestine, not really. Anymore than Catholicism vs. Evangelical Protestantism had to do with the division of Ireland or of Northern Ireland.

Two different tribes are battling over the same bit of land. One claims divine right over the property. But the dispute has very little to do with religion, mullahs and their letter notwithstanding. American Evangelical Protestants are much mistaken as well.

[Peter Bridgman]

I must congratulate the Mullahs though for getting their address list in the right order.

First comes "His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI."

Then a gap. Then a great long list of Orthodox patriarchs starting with "His All-Holiness Bartholemew I, Patriarch of Constantinople, New Rome." Then another gap.

Then another bunch of assorted Orthodox beards, starting with "His Holiness Pope Shenouda III, Pope of Alexandria and Patriarch of All Africa on the Apostolic Throne of St Mark."

Nice title, Shenouda!

Then another gap. Then (on his own) "His Beatitude Mar Dinkha IV, Patricarch of the Holy Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East."

And only then do we get the Protestant riff-raff, starting with Rowan Williams.

I didn't realise Islam could distinguish between apostolic Christianity and the hoi polloi. I'm most impressed.

[Mattheus Mei]

I think we might be looking at this wrong, I'm not sure the intended audience is necessarily the list of Christian Clerics to which it was adressed. I blogged about it...

[Abidah Sawsan]

In response to the article and the letters so far...
it is a good idea to talk about God to others and to try to promote peace. The term Wahhabi is a derogatory one and used by a "scholar" in a letter read here. The word salafi is acceptable. Interfaith dialogue often ends up without a clear result as the salafi scholars state. These same scholars respect other faiths as required in Quaranic teaching.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"Indeed, Geoffrey, the church remains divided, but at least it is committed to the peaceful pursuit of ecumenism".
- Alan Marsh, 11 OCT 2007, 11:23:07

Your church is divided, Alan, but not mine. We, too, were committed to the cause of ecumenism until we encountered such bizarre aberrations of Christianity as TEC. Forty years ago, at the close of Vatican II, working for Christian unity seemed such a realistic purpose. Not any more. Only blinkered optimists like Cardinal Kasper still chase this will-o'-the-wisp. The latest chapter in this ludicrous saga is the walk-out of the Russian Orthodox delegation from the Catholic-Orthodox talks in Ravenna. The reason? The Russians don't like the presence at the talks of the Estonian Orthodox delegation. The Estonians refuse to recognise the Moscow Patriarchate as their lawful authority instead of the Patriarch of Constantinople. Faced with nonsense like that, what hope do you think there is for Christian unity? You must be a super-optimist like Kasper. I wonder if you would look good in a red hat?

[Frank Schnittger]

Looking to either Muslims or Christians to make peace in the world is a waste of time because both are, at bottom, dedicated to a belief in the absolute rightness of their respective faiths, notwithstanding the many splits and contradictions contained in both those traditions.

Some of the more esoteric scholars in both faiths may very well wish to emphasize what these traditions hold in common, but their respective fundamentalists who will brook no dilution of the essential purity and absolute truth of their respective Christian/Muslim faiths will always trump them.

Modern western societies have resolved these contradictions by evolving secular political traditions based on the separation of Church and state and the Sovereignty of the secular state (whatever the peculiar constitutional fictions of the UK may say to the contrary).

Islamic societies, on the other hand, remain in a pre-reformation, feudal mindset with brooks no concept of the separation of Church and state, nor of the freedom of beliefs of the individual within that state.

For the West to seek common ground with Islam would be to seek continuity with our feudal past. Yes, there is a historic continuity and commonality, but to go back towards feudalistic concepts of society is to deny all the progress of the enlightenment, the Reformation, the French, American and Industrial revolutions, not to mention the many wars in between.

The truth is that the West has become a post Christian polity with mere echoes of its Christian past. For Christians to make common cause or seek commonality with Islam would be for them to go back in time, and alienate themselves still further from the modern world.

Vatican prelates may like to rail against "modernism" and are indeed, failing to achieve any realistic or enlightened dialogue with the modern world. However, they will truly box themselves into a feudal corner if they allow this Islamic power play to set their agenda in the years to some.

Some of the more astute churchmen recognise this. Others are only too happy to hanker after a feudal past where temporal and spiritual power was united in their bosoms. But the Christian world has moved on to the point where organised religion is no longer a dominant part of the world in which we live.

If the Islamic world wants to find common ground with the West, it should try democracy, respect for human rights, and an end to political and religious repression at home and abroad. Poring over some similarities in ancient texts is to miss the point entirely. Modern western societies have moved on and no longer look to Church leaders for inspiration or leadership, moral or otherwise.

If Islamic societies want world peace, the best place for them to start is to learn from the West and throw off the yoke of Islam itself.

[Ian]

138 men talking to other men. So where's the women?

[Michael Stevens]

The current manifestations of extreme political Islam, and even more moderate political islam, simply do not want to operate by the same standards as the West does.

They do demand special treatment, exceptionalism, and show an amazingly arrogant blindness to their own faults.

Having looked over the letter once, it seems to me to really be irrelevant.

[jim]

If the process of ijtihad, or continuing reinterpretation and modern evaluation of the Islamic scriptures, could be a valid, mainstream part of Islamic tradition and teaching, then Islam may be better able to present a modern, enlightened view of its past traditions and culture. Stopping the process a thousand years ago seems more than a pity to an outsider, and one of the biggest differences when comparing the major monotheisms.

[Dr. Irene Lancaster FRSA]

Here is another option: interfaith dialogue Israel style. The guy who is very involved in this type of dialogue is, like myself, the child of Holocaust survivors:

http://irenelancaster.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/10/togetherness-th.html

[MaryCunningham]

Mullahs' letter notwithstanding, the conflict in the Middle East has political, not religious, causes. At its heart it is a resource war.

And folks, *we* are in *their* countries as uninvited occupiers not the other way round. *We* have invaded and occupied two Islamic countries and are threatening to bomb a third (was the letter to head off the coming bombing of Iran? Fat chance). When Pew Attitude Survey asked a worldwide sample of respondents who the biggest threat to world peace was, the response was overwhelming: the US.

This is not about religion, nor about the age of Islam, its lack of a Reformation, undemocratic nature, treatment of women &tc. *pace* Samuel Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations”,Bernard Lewis and all the other neocons seeking to spread 'democracy'.

ME conflicts are about land and oil.

[Alan Marsh]

You make my point for me very nicely, Geoffrey. The church is divided, and yours is but one fragment of it. While you insist that it is THE church, there will never be any progress.

[Tom Jackson]

"Looking to either Muslims or Christians to make peace in the world is a waste of time ...".

The difference is, Frank, that while we may be 'dedicated to a belief in the absolute rightness of their respective faiths', as a Christian, I am not going to strap a bomb to my back in order to further Christianity in the world.

And there is nothing in Christian teaching that can be twisted or distorted or emphasised to coerce me into any form of indiscriminate or unprovoked violence against other human beings, whatever their beliefs.

And I have no problem with any other faith existing alongside Christianity in a peaceful and cooperative way.

So while I may partially agree with your statement, referencing Islamic intransigence to attack all forms of religious belief is inappropriate.

[Argeriz]

What about reciprocity in Saudi Arabia? Five clerics from South Arabia signed the letter to Christian leaders, but the word 'reciprocity' is not mentioned once in the document. Until such time as full reprocity is not accepted and implemented, all is deception and hot air. Sorry to be so blunt.

[J Pearce]

"The church is divided, and yours is but one fragment of it. While you insist that it is THE church, there will never be any progress."

This, from one man who would have us believe he is devoutly Christian, to another who prides himself on his infallible "Christianess". Lets face it, when devout adherents to the same religion cannot even temper their partiality for the sake of a united front, then what chance inter-faith rapprochment?

The Muslim scholars are absolutely correct, the future of the world IS at stake when the religious are involved. Apart from, possibly, climate change, nothing represents a greater threat to geopolitical stability then religion. It will kill us all if we don't stand up to it and fight its insidious inhumanity.

[Tom Jackson]

"At its heart it is a resource war."

There is no doubt that the West's attitude to Islamic countries in the Middle East does to some extent involve elements of concern over the supply and cost of oil coupled with the natural desire to support the democratically elected government of Israel - a State internationally recognised as legitimate - against the aggressive posture of it's neighbours.

But to characterise the issues in that area as fundamentally concerned with resources ignores the teachings of Islam which encourage the aggression against any non-Islamic nation and which are deeply rooted in the culture of Muslims with an objective of forcefully dominating all people of all nations - an objective which pre-dates any economic or resource factor where the West and Islam are concerned.

[Frank Schnittger]

Tom - I wasn't arguing that Christians and Muslims "are all the same" - indeed I argued that the Moslem letter was an invitation for Christians to go backwards towards their feudal past.

Nevertheless, Christianity has often been used as the inspiration and justification for many wars of conquest in the past, most recently the Invasion of Iraq, which was seen by the American Christian right as part of a noble crusade to spread democracy and freedom to the Middle East. Others at the extreme end of the spectrum see the Middle East conflict as a necessary part of God's plan leading toward a nuclear conflict and, ultimately, Armageddon, and are actively working to promote same.

As you say, more moderate Christians like yourself do not have any time for that sort of thing. The problem is that it is the extremists who tend to call the shots, whilst the liberals fall off the religious spectrum altogether and end up secularised and opposed to organised religion as being unrepresentative of their faith.

The triumph of the West has been built on moving away from ecclesial rule toward a secular science based culture - with many shortcomings, it has to be said, and also with many hankering after the spiritual comforts and certainties of a bygone age. There is still a "market" for religion of course, but it operates mainly in the private sphere, with public policy making less and less influenced by the prelates addressed by the Muslim letter.

Saying “our religion is better than their religion” just doesn’t cut it anymore, because “our religion” has been a major contributor to the problems of the Middle East – as experienced by both Jews and Moslems.

Mary Cunningham is right when she says that the "ME conflicts are about land and oil". But oh how easily the major religions allow themselves to be used to exacerbate such conflicts.

The secular world has a better understanding of the nuances and complexities of such conflicts and we would be better off if the religious would cease their "peace making" efforts there altogether. We need less of the "Christian" Bushes and Islamic Imams dedicated to spreading their peace and rule, not more.

Those more moderate middle of the road people like yourself, Tom, are likely to find themselves fired at by both sides!

[Dr. Irene Lancaster FRSA]

Even though certain religions (and this includes Buddhism, by the way) disagree internally and verbally, and sometimes loudly, this does not mean that religion itself is either evil or irrelevant.

People do argue among themselves about what their own religion really means and this is not an invalid way of going about things, otherwise religions would stagnate.

Argument becomes a problem however when people kill others or themselves because of their beliefs and/or have no concept of the rightness of others to disagree with them peacefully.

In the present age, it is essential that all religions have a concept of living in diaspora, otherwise the minority will swallow up the majority and impose their own views by force.

On the other hand, appeasement of minority religions is also not on. In the last 15 years or so, this has been a real problem in the UK, not least in the education system from age 4 right up to university level.

[Robin Bather]

As usual Frank Schnittger (Hi Frank) has made a concise enlightening posting that goes to the heart of the matter, and with that comment, there's really not much more to say on the subject.
He's said it all.
Well done Frank.
Your clear understanding of religious and political affairs and succinct logical conclusions lead me to ask you "Why don't you start your own blog?"
It would be a success."

[Alan Marsh]

JPearce, you are really struggling to find something offensive to say. What is unchristian about obeserving that the Church is divided - as it very evidently is - and wanting it to be reunited?

But my question is not really addressed to you, since you are simply here to troll - to distract and to create controversy.

I would be interested though to know what other bloggers think?

[Christopher]

Actually Alan, JPearce is right and you are just being peevish because it is he who says something important but which you very well don't like to hear. Well, take your fingers out of your ears and try listening. John Bowker whom you could hardly accuse of being a troll or wanting to create distraction and controversy said years ago at a conference in Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, that the religions between them will destroy the planet.

[Alan Marsh]

Christopher, I don't think you are actually reading before responding.

I was not at Corpus Christ College to hear what John Bowker said, but if you read what I said above you will see that I very much wish to see the Church reunited, not divided.

Not knowing what John Bowker said it is somewhat impossible to respond to it, but although the Church is divided, and some sections of it are taking their time to make ecumenical progress, there is no real comparison with the world of islam, which is not only divided but at war with itself, as well as with everyone else.

The problem is made a thousand times worse because islam has no recognised leaders capable of speaking for it or bringing about unity among islamic factions.

Any sign of a desire for peace on the part of islamic scholars is of course greatly to be welcomed and encouraged, but it must be a dialogue, and it cannot begin with the exclusion either of the Christian faith in Jesus, or of the Jewish people.

[MaryCunningham]

I am surprised by the eruption of anti-religious sentiment here. Muslim scholars have asked the Pope and other Christian leaders to work with them for peace. Some of the comment from, say, evangelicals has been hostile.. to be expected. There has been no comment from Muslims—Shame, that.

Yet the conflict in the Middle East is a secular one, motivated by things other than religion, primarily demand for resources and the power that domination of such brings. (The US will not soon leave Iraq, count on it!) The US, a secular power, is held up as the model for Islamic states. Yet it is the US that is about to bomb Iran, an Islamic state. The US is secular, which is good, but it engages in unnecessary wars and unprovoked aggression, which can’t be good.

In response, the secularists rage against religion, especially Christianity. Hard to understand, at least for me.

[Frank Schnittger]

Thanks Robin, but I'm afraid I've moved on. I haven't blogged here in ages and my contribution today was just a little retrospective response born of a nostalgic glance at a patch I used to frequent. The level of abuse you get on a "Christian" blog surpasses anything I have seen on a moderated blog elsewhere. I don’t start my own blog because I think that would be quite a narcissistic thing for me to do. I write to engage with other people, not to engage in a self-indulgent rant or to create a virtual shrine to my own ideas.

Irene – I have not argued that religion itself is either evil or irrelevant. Clearly it is very relevant to the ME conflict and how that conflict is being developed and managed. I would also have a difficulty with characterising such a large human phenomenon as inherently evil, although it often does seem to attract the most egotistical, blinkered and prejudiced amongst us. There is something in the human condition which seems to create a need in some to feel superior to others, and what better way of achieving this than by claiming to be “saved” or part of the one true Church whilst others are damned (unless they conform to my interpretation of the truth which I maintain is self-evidently the right one). I’m sure psychoanalysis would have some interesting perspectives on this.

Alan – I don’t think JPearce is just trying to troll - to distract and to create controversy. We are well capable of doing this for ourselves. He is pointing out, however, that those who speak about wanting Church unity tend to want it to be united on their terms. (For example, it is claimed that TEC can only be part of the Anglican Communion if it toes the anti-gay line – despite the fact that St. Paul’s views on Marriage, women, and sexuality are hardly the central points of Christianity, and the fact that the other 99% of Leviticus is conveniently ignored, some of it, indeed, by St. Paul himself).

[Christopher]

This is the post I read, Alan: JPearce said "'The church is divided......'

This, from one man who would have us believe he is devoutly Christian, to another who prides himself on his infallible "Christianess". Lets face it, when devout adherents to the same religion cannot even temper their partiality for the sake of a united front, then what chance inter-faith rapprochment........
Posted by: J Pearce | 12 Oct 2007 13:29:15"

Isn't that the one you were responding to? If it wasn't then I apologise but otherwise how do you conclude that I was responding without reading? As for John Bowker, he was not blaming one religion above another as you appear to do but was predicting that *between* them the [power] religions [probably the abrahamic ones] are capable of destroying the planet, which is more or less what JPearce has just said: "..... the future of the world IS at stake when the religious are involved". He did not say the muslims alone will do it; afterall, Bush's neocons pride themselves on being exemplary christians and they are the most likely to bomb Iran, aren't they?

[Alan Marsh]

So, Christopher, IS the Church not divided? Why all the hard work which has gone into ecumenism over many decades? Why the current talks in Ravenna?

I would have thought that "the Church is divided" is a simple statement of fact. I don't see how you could read it some other way. Perhaps you could explain?

I have no idea what context John Bowker was talking about, so I can't answer his argument directly. I guess only you know.

But I don't equate the Bush neocons with "the Church" any more than I equate Gordon Brown as prime minister with "the Church". Bush's neocons are not leaders of any church I know of, and their actions in Iraq have been denounced by most Christians, popes, patriarchs, archbishops and WCC.

Apart from some lunatic fringes which no doubt someone will unearth on google, I can't think of any significant church body which is not committed to peace and opposed to war in the middle east.

It seems to me to be wholly wrong to equate Christianity with islam in this context and if that is what John Bowker said then he ought to have been challenged at the time.

[J Pearce]

Alan,

How can I put this? It seems to me that you are on the inside of a goldfish bowl (Christianity), looking out at a very distorted vision. I am outside of that (and I don’t mean that in an intellectually or morally superior way, surprisingly enough – I mean it in a non-partisan fashion). What I see (and read) is you and G. Smith arguing pointless minutiae and it leading (hey! already has led to) a chasm in those who claim to be Christians.

The internecine conflict between Catholics and Protestants has already led to hundreds of years worth of pointless bloodshed. All this, for – what is, to outsiders - a small deviation in core beliefs! For cryin’ out loud, you and Geoff are supposed to towing the same party line! But you still, in this enlightened day and age, cannot bridge the gulf between you.

Hence my simple, outsider conclusion – you prove my point. Your partisan religious beliefs are the cause of conflict, even between those who claim to adhere to the same faith.

To non-aligned but concerned citizens like myself, how can you sleight Islam as being a more “dangerous” religion (which I personally agree with, by the way), when Christianity has so many faultlines of its own? To me, they are equally as divisive and therefore equally as dangerous. I’m not saying necessarily that Christians are going to usher in WW3, what I am saying is that partisan religious belief is immeasurably dangerous, if allowed to go unchecked.

[frank]

"The more [John Howard] is angry, the more I will get rewards from god, right? The more I make infidels angry, the more I will get my reward, so I'm more relaxed." -------Bali bomber Amrozi bin Nurhasyim, quoted today, 13/10/07, Sydney Morning Herald.
The chief Indonesian investigator has been previously quoted as saying "There is no regret at all for him [Amrozi]. Doing his duty to Allah, he shows no regret. He's very calm, very cool... proud of his activities... Amrozi's only regret about the bombing was the fact that most of the Westerners who died were Australians rather than Americans...He doesn't regret it"

Unfortunately the above sort of sentiments are held by a significant number of Muslims, and are not vigorously decried by all Muslim leaders as immoral, improper and irreligious. That the Qur'an can still today be interpreted by many Muslims throughout the world as advocating and condoning violence and murder in the 21st century in the name of Allah suggests that the moderates within Islam have a long road ahead..........

[Alan Marsh]

Thank you for a more measured response, JPearce.

I am glad to note your agreement that islam is a more dangerous religion than Christianity.

But I would wish to see a greater appreciation of the determined efforts which have been and are being made to bring the Church together, and to oppose war.

Geoffrey's case, in this context, is not "pointless minutiae". He is opposed to ecumenism because he believes that his church is the only valid Christian body, a claim supported neither by history, fact or theology.

However deep these faultlines run (and Geoffrey's own church has acknowledged the need for ecumenism and unity) they are as nothing compared to the tribal divisions within islam. I suggest you read Efraim Karsh's book, Islamic Imperialism for a through survey of the religion.

Within the Christian world, partisan religious belief was only ever dangerous when expressed through a State or States which chose to make religion a causa belli and even in the much abused example of N Ireland, religion was only ever a distinguishing mark between two populations of different origin. The IRA was never a Catholic body, and the Church of Ireland certainly never supported Mr Paisley.

By way of contrast, during my life time it is the Churches who have urged restraint upon states engaging in violence and war.

All mainstream denominations have opposed to the Iraq campaign. Church leaders in N Ireland have been at the forefront of talks to bring about the cessation of hostilities.

Just because christianity and islam are both termed religions, it does not mean that there is a moral equivalence between the two.

[Tom Jackson]

"I’m not saying necessarily that Christians are going to usher in WW3.."

Let's be honest, Christianity with all it's 'small' deviations in core beliefs does have 'so many faultlines of its own'. And human nature being what it is, these 'faultlines' can become chasms. Today, as well as historically, that is true and there is plenty of opportunity for those with no faith to limit their perspective where Christianity is concerned to these 'chasms'.

To those of us that can see beyond the differences and recognise the fundamentals of Christian teaching which hold true no matter how you choose to believe in and worship Christ, this is disappointing but it doesn't challenge our faith.

The real challenge we face - as Christians or unbelievers - is yet to come. Islam is a dangerous belief system and there is no comparison, historically or otherwise, in terms of the level of danger with any other challenge faced by the world (unless, that is, someone discovers a planet-sized asteroid hurtling our way!)

So can we rely upon this disorganised and fragmented group of 'enlightened' and fragmented, 'non-aligned but concerned citizens ' to oppose this 'danger'? I think not.

Because this is not simply a political battleground, a question of land and resources but one that is rooted in the spiritual depths of our very being.

The secular society can recognise the danger when planes fly into buildings, Tube trains are blown up or angry Muslims take to the streets of London brandishing placards calling for violence and murder. But when all the legal and socially acceptable measures have been proposed and - where possible - implemented in this politically correct community we live in today, there is nothing else the secularists can do.

Islam recognises this as a religious war. Unlike secularists and Christians, they are prepared to indiscriminately sacrifice their lives to further their objectives. And such is the nature of Islamic belief and teaching, any moderate Muslims will easily be challenged and subdued - as we witnessed in the aftermath of the terrorist atrocities.

Even if you are not a Christian, it is impossible to ignore the nature of Christian belief and teaching that provides a foundation and structure which today supports peace and stability in a community. To believe and trust in Christ is the only answer we have to face up to what will prove to be the greatest challenge to peace and stability in the future.

[Geoffrey Smith]

"I'm not saying necessarily that Christians are going to usher in WW3, what I am saying is that partisan religious belief is immeasurably dangerous, if allowed to go unchecked".
- J Pearce, 12 OCT 2007, 22:59:21

Are you offering to do the checking, Mr Pearce? If so, what restraints do you propose? Perhaps you are impressed by the up-to-date MO of your secular buddies in Beijing: freezing the feet of bishops in blocks of ice? That should do the trick nicely. No more dangerous partisans.

[John Gregory Flinn]

At first, on reading these posts, I thought I was on the website of the British National Party.
Of course it isn't, but the similarity of views, the analysis and the rhetoric has made me realize how in tune the BNP are with opinion on this subject and, significantly, vice versa!
I'm sure that will come as a surprise to many.....!

[Dr. Denis MacEoin]

I have now read the full letter, and I confess to being puzzled by it. On the face of it, it seems genuinely eirenic and touches on matters that Muslim thinkers would normally approach quite differently. The writers or, more likely, the writer) do something unusual, and that is to use Biblical texts as evidence of what Jesus said. These texts add up to a confirmation that Jesus preached a single God. Two odd things arise from this: Islamic belief with regard to the Torah and the Gospels (al-Injil) is that they have been badly corrupted by rabbis and priests (a process known as tahrif) and are, therefore, wholly unreliable. To cite passages in this way is a major step towards Christians. Secondly, it involves deliberate suppression of the Qur'anic and Hadith passages that condemn the Trinity as a form of polytheism. This is not quite unprecedented, since Muslim apologists will often argue from what the Prophet Jesus said, and distinguish this from what Christians say. And they generally avoid Biblical references and cite Qur'anic verses that attribute 'uncorrupted' sayings to Jesus.
It does seem an eirenic letter, and could do a great deal of good if both sides could find ways to act on it. I noticed several names denoting Sufi affiliation, and I wonder if this initiative may not come from the same strand of non-radical Islam that is represented in the UK by Haras Rafiq's Sufi Muslim Council. Someone with the time should check out all the signatories to help us see exactly where this is coming from. If it helps bring us all a step closer, we should embrace it in the spirit in which it seems to be intended. Should it lead instead to attempts to bring Christians round to the true belief, we should all back away.

[Dr. Irene Lancaster FRSA]

I feel that if Islam develops a theology of diaspora and accepts that it is perfectly OK to live as a minority then half the battle will be won.

At the moment Islam finds it difficult to accept this division between 'Church' and 'State'. This is because it started out as a religion of the sword (this is in their own words).

Other religions do acccept that diaspora can work and try to settle down as best they can in the areas where they find themselves. In recent years, Britain has been extremely hospitable to religions other than the established Church, for instance.

However, now one of those minority religions is trying to set the agenda and this is really not on. It is the theology of the bully. And many are being bullied unnecessarily because of the tactics of a vocal minority.

In my view, this is also why atheists and agnostics such as Dawkins et al are having such a field day and in his case also getting away with some pretty frighteningly anti-Jewish rhetoric as well.

First they come for the Jews .....

[Ben]

Thank you for the most complete article available, particularly the revelation of early Christian reaction.

My own blog post at http://snooper.wordpress.com ran to 49KB, as I dissected the letter and cited Islamic scripture to deliar it.

The reader comments at the Times show that there is a mix of ignorance and knowledge of Islam. It is necessary to push back the ignorance and spread knowledge. For this purpose I built a web site containing links to Islamic scripture, tradition, law and tafsir. http://www.geocities.com/crusadersarmory/ also offers fliers, Powerpoint presentations and on line petitions anyone can use to spread the truth.

[Steve Hayes]

One problem that has caused a great deal of confusion is that in your post you have linked to the wrong letter.

There are two letters, one by 38 and the other by 138 Muslim scholars, the latter was issued on the anniversary of the former. I've just put a corrective on my blog, but it might avoid some of the confusion if you corrected the link.

[emanuel appel]

a letter from America

Dear J Pearce,

Fault lines among squabbling children ( Christians ) are not to be compared with fault lines among the murdering fanatics who follow Mohammed. Get a sense of proportion.

I'm not against schisms as I'm not against different nations. The worst condition in my book is when ALL must follow the same God and obey the same Ruler. Diversity is the greatest opportunity for individual freedom. Let's use the "gay" example since you've spent a great deal of time on it.

I would respect your argument re this type of sexuality on the grounds of diversity for its own sake. That is, we all don't have to perform coitus in the same way. If you want uniformity in religion as proof of its validity or to make it less dangerous, then I want uniformity in sexual practice ordering all to the "missionary position". It won't wash.

You have to use common sense in observing the world. There are certain people who'll kill you to make you conform to either religion or sex. The trick is to convince those in power that appeasement is not the way; rather, isolation of impossible elements.

[bill]

"In my view, this is also why atheists and agnostics such as Dawkins et al are having such a field day and in his case also getting away with some pretty frighteningly anti-Jewish rhetoric as well. First they come for the Jews ...." ----Irene L

Irene, you really are a touch paranoid, and spray your own rhetoric about with abandon. As they say in poker, you've got to know when to hold 'em. Not all the world is against you on everything just because they don't think like you on lots of things!

[Dr. Irene Lancaster FRSA]

With regard to Denis' post,I don't understand how stating that rabbis have corrupted Torah is helpful to Muslim-Christian dialogue, unless both these religions want to start a new war against Judaism.

It is actually the rabbis' interpretation of Torah which counts, and not the Torah itself. So for instance, there is no death penalty in Judaism, even though if you just read the Torah (Bible) you might think there was.

'Eye for an eye' was interpreted to mean 'a just financial compensation for injury' and not as stated literally.

In other words, rabbis came to attenuate the text and not the other way round.

To repeat: the Bible itself isn't so important in Judaism - it is ONGOING interpretation by scholars that does the trick.

Islam and Christianity could do worse than learn from this as well.

[Tom Jackson]

"On the face of it, it seems genuinely eirenic and touches on matters that Muslim thinkers would normally approach quite differently".

I remember an old saying; 'the proof of the pudding is in the eating'.

Frank made the point earlier; 'If the Islamic world wants to find common ground with the West, it should try democracy, respect for human rights, and an end to political and religious repression at home and abroad.'

Now that would really demonstrate that Islamic approaches such as this letter are designed to promote peace rather than just another example of the Islamic form of allowable deception know as 'Taqiyya', used when a believer feels under threat and sometimes extended to situations where Islam - or the advance of Islamic belief - is threatened.

'At first, on reading these posts, I thought I was on the website of the British National Party'.

Several years ago, when I first started to seriously research Islamic belief and practices, I would have been appalled to recognise any correlation between my developing conclusions and the rhetoric of the BNP, a thoroughly despicable organisation.

However, the fact the BNP has recognised and exploited concerns such as the spread of Islamic influence in our society simply places a greater responsibility on other individuals who express similar concerns to be introspectively self-critical and thoroughly analytical to eliminate any possibility of racist factors having any influence.

We have to accept that simply because a conclusion might be along similar lines as that exploited by a racist organisation does not in itself invalidate that conclusion. And any attempt to suppress that conclusion simply because it is associated with a racist organisation should be strongly resisted - especially since, where this issue is concerned, those seeking to play-down the dangers of Islam will not hesitate to characterise any concerns as racist.

[Dr. Irene Lancaster FRSA]

Ben, as they say, just because I'm paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get us.

Dawkins has been guilty of classic anti-semitic language in his most recent statements about the USA. And it isn't me who is saying so, but quite a few leftist Marxists at British universities.

What is happening is that the British 'anti-semitic discourse' (quote from the 2006 All-Party Committee against Antisemitism) is getting out of hand, so that anyone and everyone feels that they can take part in the game of Jew-baiting.

[emanuel appel]

a letter from America

Dear Dr. Irene,

Why wasn't I invited to play the game? We can make it a foursome.

Maybe because I'm not always "reaching out" to those who wish us ill. It's my contention that holding out the olive branch will continually invite vermin to attack us.

Compare the mass of the British establishment when faced with violent Negroes or crazy Moslems and their behavior with us. Honeyed words drip from round voweled lips. Government programs are earnestly proposed with the former but crazy assertions and paranoia re us. Even a mentally retarded person ( oops, is that term acceptable nowadays?) can change their behavior when continually disappointed. Why can't we as a nation?

[jim]

"To repeat: the Bible itself isn't so important in Judaism - it is ONGOING interpretation by scholars that does the trick. Islam and Christianity could do worse than learn from this as well." (Irene)

Many agree, Irene. Muslims definitely need to continue their scriptural interpretation,which for many seems to have stalled in a medieval past, in ways more appropriate for the 21st century, and there are Muslim scholars doing that, but they need more support. Most Christians already believe in ongoing interpretation.

Having said that, there are some fundamentalist Jewish and Christian interpretations around that could do with a lot of modernising.

There are an absurd number of edicts written by Jewish and Muslim (and generally far, far fewer by Christian) clerics/rabbis on how to pray, where to pray, how to dress, how to eat, what to eat and when, whom to socialise with, whom to marry, who should have and how to have sex, and untold other codes for how to live and behave, that only promote separateness, and are certainly the antithesis of modernity in a secular society.

[Christopher]

Irene said "It is actually the rabbis' interpretation of Torah which counts, and not the Torah itself."

This is one of the most sensible things said about holy texts for a long time. It is the only way to make them humane and applicable to the human condition as we know it to be. Otherwise, stating that the text is inerrant in and of itself, inadmissible to intelligent criticism, is a hostage to fortune, handing the victory simultaneously to extreme fundamentalists on the one hand and extreme secularists on the other.

[Tom Jackson]

"Having said that, there are some fundamentalist Jewish and Christian interpretations around that could do with a lot of modernising."

"and untold other codes for how to live and behave, that only promote separateness, and are certainly the antithesis of modernity in a secular society"

Irene's statement, 'the Bible itself isn't so important in Judaism - it is ONGOING interpretation by scholars that does the trick', does not suggest that if there is strong conviction and deeply held beliefs where, for example, woman or homosexual clergy are concerned, these are automatically changed to reflect secular values and standards.

In Christianity, there is quite rightly a movement to reconsider the role of women in the Church and over time, that will change considerably. This is not purely on the basis that modern society has recognised women in a different light but because it is clear that interpretation of New Testament teaching takes us in that direction once the respect and regard for a woman's equality with a man is accepted.

Other issues to do with behaviour may well be interpreted by certain people as promoting separateness and may represent 'the antithesis of modernity in a secular society', but that does not make that behaviour acceptable, either in the Church or in society at large. Given the same consideration as a woman's role - as far as interpreting Christ's teaching is concerned - the same process of prayer and review in terms of Christian values and standards, some behaviour will always be considered unacceptable.

And this is the way it should be because, given a free rein, one can easily imagine a degree of modernity where extremes of behaviour, currently deemed unacceptable, are condoned - because that behaviour evolves into what is considered 'modern'.

Taking the subject of child abuse as an example, most of us consider paedophilia unacceptable but there have been moves in the past to change that. The conclusions reached by Dr Frits Bernard in his book, Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia (1987), concerned with The Dutch Paedophile Emancipation Movement, are frightening in terms of presenting this abominable behaviour as acceptable.

[Geoffrey Smith]

Irene said: "It is actually the rabbis' interpretation of Torah which counts, and not the Torah itself".

And when two rabbis contradict each other? Orthodox versus Reform? Not exactly a sensible statement, was it?

[J Pearce]

"To repeat: the Bible itself isn't so important in Judaism - it is ONGOING interpretation by scholars that does the trick."

I can't see how this is any more helpful, to be honest. There are plenty of Islamic clerics who have "interpreted" the Koran to justify an extremely anti-US (and by extension, anti-Israeli and anti-western) position, just as there are plenty of Christians who have "interpreted" the Bible to justify whatever petty prejudices they happen to hold. The problem remains the same - without the ability to fundamentally revise (and wholesale update) core texts, religious belief remains rooted to the context and content of the books which inform it.

Hence the religious remain permanently wedded to the past, unable to create a future without it. Belief simply becomes an endless loop of repeating interpretations. In my humble opinion, the only reason religious interpretation of the Bible has "progressed" (I use the word advisedly) is because the world changed around Biblical scholars - the philosophical and scientific revolution during the enlightenment forced students of the Bible to play a constant game of catch up as they were overtaken by events in the real world. And they still haven't caught up yet.

Small wonder, then, that evolving interpretations of the Koran stalled so long ago - the Middle East never experienced the intellectual and political revolution that Europe did and thus remains stuck in the Dark Ages, both politically and religiously. Until Muslims are given the political freedom to question their religion en masse, there will never be any meaningful reform of Koranic interpretation. But because the Islamic political system is based on the Koran, it becomes a self-perpetuating system of intellectual and political repression...

[Mike Homfray]

We have here the unsightly scenario of different conservative religionists having a go at other religions whilst seeing their own as blameless.

Religionism which starts from positions that their way is right, that their god has given them territory, or that the other religion is always in the wrong can make very little contribution to change.

They first have to change themselves - and that means that ALL conservative religions, with their 'holy books', are equally culpable.

[Mike Homfray]

We have here the unsightly scenario of different conservative religionists having a go at other religions whilst seeing their own as blameless.

Religionism which starts from positions that their way is right, that their god has given them territory, or that the other religion is always in the wrong can make very little contribution to change.

They first have to change themselves - and that means that ALL conservative religions, with their 'holy books', are equally culpable.

[Tom Jackson]

"We have here the unsightly scenario of different conservative religionists having a go at other religions whilst seeing their own as blameless."

Depending on how you characterise 'blame', both historically and in today's world, Christianity has a lot to answer for. However, it is too simplistic and insidious to maintain that as a Christian, someone believes they have all the answers, they are right all the time and everyone else is wrong.

Having a faith almost certainly means questioning your beliefs continuously. The point has already been made about revisiting the fundamental teachings of your religion and looking for new interpretations or understanding given the experience of the modern world. This is a vital and incumbent process, especially in Christianity, which is not a dead faith - cast in stone 2,000 years ago - but alive and vibrant even as we debate.

Where I think 'having a go at other religions' is essential is when a particular belief system is based on teachings that encourage violence and intolerance of other people's beliefs. I become even more concerned when an immigrant belief system seeks to undermine that of the indigenous population with religious, social and political objectives that are alien to that population.

Personally, I respect anyone who has a faith other than Christianity and even those secularists who have rejected religion. We all have the right to believe what we want. I do believe that Christianity is the only true faith to follow, that Christ is our Saviour and that our community here in the UK - which is build on a foundation of Christian values and standards - is under threat because of the reduction in influence of our Church.

But if someone wants to believe something else and acts in a responsible, considerate and peaceful manner, no problem. People of the Jewish faith, for example, lived here quite happily for hundreds of years. I am not aware of a Jew or a Hindu or a Buddhist or a Jehovah's Witness strapping explosives to their back and blowing up fellow citizens on the public transport system.

I am aware that after 300 or so years, Jews are abandoning the UK, probably fearful as a result of the changes to our society, the initial undermining of our culture that has taken place in the last decade or so.

[emanuel appel]

a letter from America

Dear all and Tom Jackson,

Your observations are good based on what any fool can observe who's not an ideologue.

What's at stake here is your collective self -confidence as a culture. Whether religious or secular, the UK's culture has been undermined by the treason of the educators and the Left over a period of 40 years. You yourself said the same when harking back at a Britain, with her back to wall, did not buckle before the Nazi beast.

The present women furies, of both sexes, would tear Churchill apart today if he were around. The answer lies in promoting freedom over equality.

[jim]

Tom, new or modern certainly doesn't always mean better, and sometimes old ideas, beliefs, morals or whatever merely need recasting anew, or minor fine tuning.
I feel, however, that food practices, dress codes, quantifying prayer schedules, and much else within the monotheisms and other religions certainly don't foster a sense of togetherness and community within the broader society, and in fact inhibit intermingling socially and the cross-fertilisation of ideas outside of the religious groups practicing and promoting their differences.

[Tom Jackson]

"Whether religious or secular, the UK's culture has been undermined by the treason of the educators and the Left over a period of 40 years".

I may not put it in those terms but the failure in areas such as the educational system and the increase in over-indulgent Leftist influence and experimentation over the past 3 or 4 decades has certainly been a contributing factor to the weakening of a community which was admired and respected - if not always welcomed - around the world.

Many of the problems that now plague our society can be traced back to poor organisation and management, a lack of commitment and accountability at all levels and a gradual decline in the respect and consideration that we have for one another.

On the radio this morning, I listened to a nurse who was leaving the Health Service after 14 years because she was unable to the do the job she trained for; caring for patients. The continual upheaval and change had resulted in so many levels of management, bureaucracy and the inevitable cost-cutting and 'efficiency' savings that Health Trusts embark upon to meet tight budgets and still operate economically; the result of poor management.

I live in the area where Stephen Lawrence was brutally murdered on April 22nd 1993. The campaign against racism in the police force which followed and the measures that were implemented to address the problem, effectively undermined any action the police could take where street crime is concerned with more paper-work and bureaucracy introduced to camouflage what was basically poor management.

These are just two examples but after over 40 years in the workplace, working in both private and public organisations, I have witnessed a deterioration of management and an increase in wasted time and resources of almost equal measure. The lack of accountability and the impossibility of assigning responsibility when failures occur only perpetuates the problem.

Our community is losing it's identity. This may not be considered too great a problem given our relatively stable and peaceful society but it would certainly be a problem in, for example, Israel. And that is because there is an obvious need for Israelis to work together, to pull in the same direction because of their isolation and precarious position in the region.

But, I would argue, that same need does exists here in the UK as well but is highly unlikely to materialise due to the undermining of our community and our culture by the social experimenters and now, the growing influence resulting from mass immigration and the resurgence of cultural identity amongst the young people of immigrant families.

As an Englishman, I am not sure what my identity is anymore. Only as a Christian am I able to clearly and unambiguously understand and accept who and what I am. Yet the society I have lived in for sixty years was founded and structured around Christian principles and only by a strengthening and reapplication of those principles can the future be assured. This is what people such as Churchill believed in and fought for.

[Tom Jackson]

There is, Jim, a great deal of sense in what you are saying but the truth is, any belief system is reliant upon certain practices and behaviour patterns in order to maintain and protect the core of the faith.

And it is true to say, with some exceptions, that as society evolves, within the constraints and understanding of fundamental teaching, the people practicing a religion adapt and evolve with it.

What you identify as a failure to 'foster a sense of togetherness and community within the broader society' is often a combination of ordinary ineptness combined with earnestly held interpretations of just how far our belief and teaching allows us to go.

This is clearly illustrated by the question of homosexual clergy where many of us, while recognising the position of the homosexual community and it's desire to be seen as 'normal', feel that to do so contradicts both our Christian beliefs and also our inherent understanding of what is right and what is wrong.

On the other hand, the question of women's role in the Church is clearly under review and is evolving to a position that many of us are more comfortable with.

As an Anglican, there are many other belief systems that I have no problem with, many other flavours of Christianity that I see as brothers in Christ. There are those of faiths such as Islam which in certain areas, completely contradict not just my common sense but also my understanding of the respect and consideration we should all have for one another.

Having a faith does change the way you think about the world, your community and other people. In particular, this does present a problem where the secular community is concerned, not least because they think you are barking mad! Still, I guess I could always come back if I discover there is a not a God when I die and let them say, 'I told you so!'

[emanuel appel]

a letter from America

Dear Tom Jackson,

If your primary ability to understand yourself and your priciples is in religion, then it doesn't matter if you move across the Channel to Spain or France or Slovakia and let the UK sink.

My experience is different. My primary concern is nationality and religion secondarily for the following reason. Even if I were to become an Anglican, or Methodist, or Buddhist, the cultural elements my parents and ancestors gave me would make me behave in a particular way. I would be a contentious, skeptical Anglican and, if you succeeded in converting all of English Jewry into proper little Anglicans, you'd soon have to leave your churches because you'd be mired in the usual Jewish questions. You'd never have your Anglican peace again. You'd have to invent an Anglo Anglican Church to be happy. Therefore , rethink your thoughts on nationality.

It is evident that your attitude is the end product of Labor party bureaucracy, work making, money wasting after all these years.

[Dr. Irene Lancaster FRSA]

There's a lot of food for thought here.

With reference to interpretation of texts in Judaism, it is true that Reform and Orthodox don't agree on some points, but debate is also encouraged within Orthodoxy itself.

For instance, in practice there was no death penalty in Judaism, despite statements to the contrary in the Bible. The Sanhedrin felt that execution diminished the executioner and that mercy should be offered.

A more famous interpretation is that of 'an eye for an eye', which was interpreted as meaning 'monetary compensation adequate for the injury suffered'. It never ever signified the literal meaning.

As for dress codes etc., these have also evolved, even though some have chosen to adhere to strict 18th-century garb. That is their business, as long as they don't force it on those who don't want it.

Finally, on Judaism at least, it is not just a religion, but also an ethnic grouping and a people.

I would like to reiterate that a law was brought into Judaism in around the 4th century that the law of the land has to be kept at all times when there is a clash between Jewish law and secular law.

[Mike Homfray]

Thing is, Tom, I don't relate to your idea of english identity or Christian identity at all. They are not what i stand for, relate to or believe in.

I regard myself as a liberal, a gay man and a European. There is no place for me in your ideal world and that is why I do not wish to see its return and do not mourn its passing.

[emanuel appel]

a letter from America

Dear Dr. Irene,

The idea that the law of the land is paramount is a bit of currying favor of the alien authorities. For example, German Law of the period 1933-1945 would be hard for all Jews to follow since it leads to national suicide.

Better would be to state that Judaism is the way of the Jew when meeting God. It's our national expression, not a universal system that transcends nationality. It can but it's difficult.

The people here play one type of game while play another. You and I are both Jews although we may practice our belief system in different ways or not at all.

[Dr. Irene Lancaster FRSA]

Emanuel: you are completely correct. Sticking to the law of the land and obeying the authorities led to the death of many or most Jews in Europe.

This is why we see a similar pattern now emerging again certainly in France and to a lesser extent, but still significantly, in Britain.

The Jews will have to slightly emend their pacifist stance in the diaspora if they are to survive there. Other groups, particularly the Muslim community and even the Sikhs on at least one famous occasion in Birmingham, have used violence with spectacular success in Britain.

It made the establishment sit up and the Queen's Christmas message that year was how wonderful Muslims and Sikhs were. Jews, Hindus and Buddhists were not even mentioned in her message - what an insult!

Being taken for granted worked for a long time, but not any more.

Maybe this is why people don't really understand the Israelis: they are the complete opposite of the diaspora Jew to the point of nonchalance and this comes as a shock - even to people like me at times.

It's all on my blog.

[emanuel appel]

a letter from America

Dear Dr. Irene,

There is a wide gap in foreigners seeing us as we are and their perception. We are as hard to herd as a bunch of cats.

The militance you speak of contradicts 2000 years of rabbinic Judaism versus the previous Temple centered Judaism. There is a passive element in most rabbinic literature in that these people were willing to compromise all for the sake of survival. The forsaking of honor led to a distortion of our character outside of Israel and it has surviving elements within Israel , the nation, itself.

The question is: what is to be done? If I were starting life over again, I'd have 6+ children and counsel every Jew to do otherwise even if we had to pay money bounties.
Second, I'd emphasize the American Protestant dictum that God helps those who help themselves.

Third, the community should stage massive marches at key times ( Passover, Israel Independence Day) to indicate we are here, we're happy, and we will celebrate ourselves.

[felipe redondo]

According to this article I think this step is positive,because it emphasizes the necessity of dialoguing. it`s so important to be on good terms each other, and much more nowadays.
of course the 9/11, or the invasion of Irak they weren`t a help but we should forget prejudices and close this historic trouble.
also, it would be ok, if we built a better society for the future.
solutions given in the text could help us to do it, or at least to try it.

[Tom Jackson]

"I regard myself as a liberal, a gay man and a European."

I respect that, Mike, and I hope that your expectations where liberalism and the European ideal are satisfied.

Believe it or not, as a young man I would have shared a vision of a united Europe, a liberal society where everyone respected each other's freedom and point of view. Sadly, although my life has been both prosperous and satisfying in many ways, that vision has gradually been eroded over the years.

The cohesive and unifying spirit that in the past ensured that you and I could live freely and prosperously in our community today has been eroded to a significant degree. Those in our families who sacrificed their lives during the last century to safeguard our democracy and freedom could never have foreseen how the price they paid would be squandered as time went by.

I trust that you will never have your liberalism and the choices you have made in your life taken away from you because of a failure to maintain a community that is strong, that pulls together and which is willing to face up to adversity when threatened.

[emanuel appel]

a letter from Ameica

Dear All,

The idea of being a European is nonsense from the word go. Only by going to a structure like the Roman Empire could the concept work; a centralised Empire with a common culture and language. Is that what you have now and do you want it?

It's laughable that people whose habits are so ingrained such as requiring tea for breakfast would buy such nonsense. Would you change your tea for expresso, a croissant, and a Gauloise caporal for breakfast? They'd probably throw you in jail and give you a stern health lecture.

[Tom Jackson]

"The idea of being a European is nonsense from the word go."

Sad, but true.

[Dr. Irene Lancaster FRSA]

I'm not conservative, by the way, Mike. I'm quite radical in my thinking, like most of the rabbis (not that I am one, of course).