Islam 'reformation' imminent

It is being widely reported that the leading religious authority in Turkey, the Diyanet, is to agree to an editing down of the Hadith, the books containg the sayings and deeds of Mohammed, and on which 90 per cent of sharia law is based. One thing that could go is the mandatory death sentence for apostasy, which does not appear in the Koran but is about to be introduced in Turkey's neighbour Iran. How likely is this, and what will its impact be? The Times' Michael Binyon unpacks it, below. 

In another initiative that fits in with the current mood of Ishtihad, or reasoning, that is the fourth pillar of Islam, Muslim scholars yesterday sent a letter to leaders of the Jewish community in an attempt to build better relations. This initiative came out of the Woolf Institute of Abrahamic Faiths where the head of the Muslim-Jewish centre is Dr Amineh Hoti, daughter of Professor Akbar Ahmed, former High Commissioner of Pakistan to Britain. She is living witness to the untruth of the statement in the Hadith: 'Women are imperfect in intellect and religion.' You can download the letter as a word document  here I hope).

One of the great privileges of working at The Times is that people such as Michael from time to time come by my desk on their way to the editor's office and stop for a chat. This is what he told me just now about Turkey and Islam.

'Any moment now, they are likely to come up with the proposals. It is a secular Islamist government encouraging them to do this. This is a wonderful way of resolving this problem about the conflict between Islam and modernity. They can simply say that religious tradition is perfectly flexible and is compatible with modern reality, because the action of various spurious hadiths has been taken to be immutable and in fact this is wrong. They do not have scholarly sanction or the sanction of the Koran.

'For the past thousand years the authenticity of the hadiths has been a big argument in Islam. Quite a few were invented for political expedience. There has already been a purging. There are now only six books of them. '

In the Muslim diaspora, increasingly scholars are thinking of looking at ways the hadiths can be interpreted for modern living. For example, the Internet is not mentioned anywhere, but texts could be found which can be fitted to guidance on its use.

This was the general practice until about 1400, when the Caliphate, based in Turkey, announced that this process of interpretation was closed. The Caliphate decreed that Islam had reached such a state of perfection, no further reasoning was necessary. Until now, there has not been a determined attempt to re-open this process of Ishtihad. 'But it is one of the four pillars of Islamic jurisprudence,' said Binyon. For many years, the rest of the Islamic world has ignored Turkey, in spite of its history, but with its new Islamist government the country will achieve a higher status and influence once more among its Islamic neghbours.

Of course, whatever Turkey does along these lines, it will make no difference to extremists in Pakistan and Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia.

'But it may be influential in appealing to a younger generation of more secular-minded Muslims who want to remain in the framework of their religion but do not have the theological basis to do so and are troubled by hadiths that seem contradictory. If it can be shown that some of the hadiths have uncertain origins, it does make it much easier to concentrate on the original message. This could be the way to the renewal of Islam.'

Comments

[Kosher Holiday]

If we have thought about it, we have given thanks that we have been spared the burden of living in the Age of the Protestant Reformation. But now we fear that we have been doomed, instead, to live in the Age of the Islamic Reformation. The parallels are striking: a dominant clergy and aristocracy that seem to have lost their way and succumbed to materialism; a rising literate middle class

[David Palmer]

I’m probably too late on this, but…

J Pearce says, “I have previously referred to, where Christians engage in a wilful, blissful ignorance of the manifest incongruities of their belief system, blatantly ignore the most obvious accusations against their beliefs and instead, choose to engage in a spot of secularist bashing to hide their inadequacies”

No, it is not that we are blissfully ignorant but that you have failed to demonstrate that ignorance to us. It is one thing to claim that we are “blissfully ignorant” it is another thing to convince us that you even know what you are talking about.

You say, “you denigrated Christopher Hitchens” – have you read “God is not great”? Now that really is denigration, or is denigration your prerogative alone to declare?

You follow this up with the pearler, “Christianity is the biggest p*ss-take since man first engaged in speculating on the existence of potential deities” – now might that not be “denigration” - do you really think you are going to be taken seriously by Christians?

[Tom Jackson]

"Christianity is the biggest p*ss-take since man first engaged in speculating on the existence of potential deities."

I wish I was so certain about atheism! But then, I don't just pretend to have an open, receptive and questioning mind.

[Mark Robertson]

As with all religion, a quote can suffice

"The way to see by Faith is to shut the Eye of Reason"
Benjamin Franklin

[J Pearce]

Mr Palmer,

You've taken two unrelated quotes of mine and conjoined them to create a false impression of the argument I was making. And you've completely ignored the main thrust of the argument put forward and instead, wandered off into your own little world, warbling about "ice cream", as if it actually makes any sense to anyone except yourself.

This is precisely the kind of behaviour I have previously referred to, where Christians engage in a wilful, blissful ignorance of the manifest incongruities of their belief system, blatantly ignore the most obvious accusations against their beliefs and instead, choose to engage in a spot of secularist bashing to hide their inadequacies.

Rather than comprehensively responding to the argument, you ended up attacking me. In much the same way you denigrated Christopher Hitchens. So I'm in good company, at least.

FYI, I am 100% confident that a) I cannot definitively express to myself that there is a God, b) I cannot definitively express to myself that there is NOT a God and c) Christianity is the biggest p*ss-take since man first engaged in speculating on the existence of potential deities.

Ithangyew.

[David Palmer]

"The fact that Christians actually believe there is Satan, Hell, that punishment exists for sinners - is a complete rejection of the assertion that God bestowed JC upon this Earth to save mankind.

Ridiculous, isn't it?"

No, I don’t think so.

Let me put it to you this way, J Pearce. Suppose I offer you an ice cream but you refuse for whatever reason. Being a reasonable chap I will not press the ice cream on you, conversely you miss out on the ice cream and we both move on.

The thing that puzzles me is that in rejecting the Christian God and Christian teaching - so childish for a sophisticate such as yourself - why are you so het-up about Satan, Hell, punishment which I agree forms part of Christianity?

If you had confidence in the views you are expressing I would think that instead of being aggravated and aggravating you would be having a quiet larff at our childish credulity.

The fact that you don’t have this confidence leads me to suspect that, regardless of Christian teaching, “the things that we can’t not know” are in fact pressing upon you. The question then becomes will you deny “the things that you can’t not know” strenuously enough that you get the required level of confidence to enable you to stop sprouting the nonsense you have been writing or better by far, acknowledge to yourself the truth of “these things that you can’t not know” pressing upon you.

[Christopher]

"Bonus! (3) Romans 1 Verses 26 To 32; "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections..."

So Rick, you are telling us BECAUSE we are atheists (your term for us, not our own) we will be given "up unto vile affections" (be turned into homosexuals - your word for it) as a PUNISHMENT? Is that what you are saying? If so you are even more of a ninny than I took you for. What kind of a demonic monster do you believe in? Or rather what kind of ridiculous and anthropic notion of god have you swallowed?

Can you for once put an argument, generated from your own intellect, without parroting words from the scripture? I guess the answer is "no". The Bible for you is like some telephone directory which serves only one purpose - to provide quotes to bamboozle people with. Good luck, mate, but you'll never convince anyone who does not share your narrow terror-stricken view of an unpleasant deity.

[andrew holden]

"except the evidence which exists in your head."

Actually I was waiting for someone else to point this out but it looks like I'll have to do it myself.

Evidence in our heads is the only evidence anyone has to go on. The world is how it seems to me. Your mileage may vary but human integrity suggests that I should respect the difference and so should you.

In an ultimate sense neither of us has any way of deciding which of us has the better perception of reality - or whether reality somehow copes with an infinite diversity of perception. All each of us can do is try to be true the perception we perceive. At least I have the belief that God is the ultimate reality even if I perceive only a small part of it. That leads me, at least, to the rather humble conclusion that I can't dictate to you how you should see things!

I'm amazed at the arrogance so many people round here seem to have that they and they alone have THE definitive take on the truth - and they are not all 'religious' fundamentalists.

[Tom Jackson]

"A more accurate definition of free will is to explore further than the artificially enforced conceptual limits dictated by Christian belief."

Let me see now. Well, no Christian can have followed this concept, J Pearce, because if they had, they would believe exactly the same as you! Is that right?

Or, is it possible that some of us Christian's have, in fact, done just that - and a lot more besides - and come to a different conclusion about God and Christianity?

I go even further, J Pearce; could you be wrong? Are you the only person who really understands all there is to know about religion, the reality and the myths?

Or, could it be that you have stepped up to the plate, faced the evidence, made your decision and assumed a degree of infallibility that those of us with more humility and knowledge of human failings would only assign to a Creator?

I have been surprised too many times in my life, J Pearce, by people and events that I no longer am surprised to be surprised. You and I know nothing. We only bring to bear what experience we have, filtered through the awareness we have developed, a process that is unique to each and every one of us.

If we arrive at different conclusions, so be it. If millions of people through time claim to have witnessed faires cavorting at the bottom of their garden, I would hesitate before ridiculing their belief.

The power and influence of Christianity far outweighs such fantasy as fairy stories (and that includes the overwhelming effect that JK Rowling has had in recent times).

[andrew holden]

"The Bible IS an assemblage of myths, partially verified historical acocunts"

Well yes it is - I've no argument with this except that its a lead in to what follows and at least looks like a put down even if you say it isn't.

" and a manifesto for social engineering. Fact. It tells you what to do and how to behave - that’s the very defintion of social engineering!"

Not so on either count.

[J Pearce]

Mr Beekman,

Nice try mate, but no dice! I'm not atheist! Therefore I am not a "hater of God" etc etc. I weep not!

Think of it like this. If I were to accept TJ's assertion that God gives me free will, then I have used that free will to rumble the sham which is Christianity. Which therefore presents us with the interesting proposition, that God actually encourages us to look beyond the confines of your comedy gospel and to see the world, not censored and policed by Christian dogma, but in a much richer, broader and more humane fashion.

Y'know, the more I think about it, the more I think God created Christianity (and indeed Islam) for children - and left the rest of us grown-ups to use our free will to deal with the important issues in life. But, children being children, they like to throw their tantrums every so often to remind us they exist…

[J Pearce]

"so no, I do not believe in "a system of control codified by what is essentially an assemblage of myths, partial historical accounts and social engineering manifesto" and don't recognise anything of my faith in that description other than yet another misguided attempt to denigrate the value of the Christian Scriptures."

I'm not denigrating anything, I'm pointing out facts. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that some "God" being has anything to do with the Bible and Christianity, except the evidence which exists in your head. The Bible IS an assemblage of myths, partially verified historical acocunts and a manifesto for social engineering. Fact. It tells you what to do and how to behave - that’s the very defintion of social engineering!

A more accurate definition of free will is to explore further than the artificially enforced conceptual limits dictated by Christian belief. Step outside the myths, assumptions and intellectual barriers deliberately created by Christian ideology to exert a measure of control over you and you will begin to see how the world really works. Try it. I'm not saying you'll lose your belief in "God", but it'll certainly show you what religion is all about.

[Rick Beekman]

Christopher And J.Pearce;
When I Read All The Atheist Unbeleif You Gentlemen Spew Out...Two Verses Come to Mind From The Bible;
(1) "If Our Gospel Be Hid It Is Hid To Them That Are Lost".

(2) "Professing Themselves To Be Wise They Became FOOLS."

Bonus! (3) Romans 1 Verses 26 To 32; "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections for even their woman did change the NATURAL use into that which is AGAINST NATURE. And likewise also the men leaving the NATURAL use of the woman burned in their lust one toward another men with men working that which is unseemly and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. and even as they did not retain God in their knowledge God gave them over to a REPROBATE MIND to do those things which are not convenient. Being filled with all unrighteousness..fornication..wickedness..covetous..maliciousness...full of envy..murder..debate...deceit...malignity...whisperers. Backbiters..HATERS OF GOD..despiteful..proud..BOASTERS..inventors of evil things..disobedient to parents. WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING..covenant breakers..without natural affection..implacable...unmerciful....

Read It And Weep Chaps! Have A Great Day....

[Oliver Nicholson]

"What does being a Christian give you above being, say, a humanist agnostic?"

Joy and peace in believing. And a sense of purpose, so also hope. Of course it could be the placebo effect, but then maybe some things should be permitted to give pleasure. And Pascal's bet seems to bring more hope than the alternative. If one is wrong, and so of all men the most deceived, it was good while it lasted. Does that help ?

[J Pearce]

Mr Palmer,

Nice passage. I read it to mean that as long as I believe in a Christian God, I can do anything I want - regardless of consequences - and I'll be forgiven and redeemed upon my death and have everlasting heavenly life. JC died so that my sins will be forgiven, right?

So if, when I shuffle off this mortal coil, some chubby white bloke in a beard is going to tell me I'm off to the Seventh Circle of Hell because I knicked the milk money when I was 10, then that pretty much lays waste to the pretence of Jesus dying for my sins, yes? 'Cos apparently he didn't and I'll be off for a long date with Satan.

The fact that Christians actually believe there is Satan, Hell, that punishment exists for sinners - is a complete rejection of the assertion that God bestowed JC upon this Earth to save mankind. Because clearly, he doesn't - unless you believe your labyrinthine non-logic of Christian dogma of course, where white is black when it suits the argument.

Its yet more of this "cake and eat it" philosophy, is it not? Or perhaps it should be re-phrased as "we're right all the time"? Where is the moral cogency in a belief system which, on the one hand, appears to injunct against homosexuality but on the other, exhorts the believer to worship the sanctity of life and trust in Gods final judgement (as oppsed to human judgement)? Who is the sinner - the gay person or the Nigerian Christian who stones him to death in the name of Christianity?

According to your belief system Mr. Palmer, neither is a sinner in the eyes of God - JC dies for their sins, remember - and yet both are, because the Bible is anti-gay and the Nigerian Christian is a murderer.

Ridiculous, isn't it?

[andrew holden]

I don't have a choice about believing because not to do so would be to abandon my personal integrity. I believe because on balance I find it more reasonable that God exists than doesn't. If I were to decide to believe in, say, six-day creationism I would have to surrender my convictions that the earth is a heck of a lot older than 10,000 years. My belief in God is similar but far more important.

I believe in God and on reflection find that my reason does not suggest to me that that belief is merely wishful thinking. If I were persuaded that my reasons for belief were unsound then I would not believe - but I don't think that either way choice comes into it at all. I believe, or don't believe, because I must do what my reason indicates.

As to what I believe in well I'm a fairly open-minded Christian theist not much different from many of the others posting here - though I imagine one or two might reckon I'm not a 'true Christian' because I don't toe the fundamentalist line on certain moral issues. Paramount in my belief system is a belief in a God given and God enabled freedom - so no, I do not believe in "a system of control codified by what is essentially an assemblage of myths, partial historical accounts and social engineering manifesto" and don't recognise anything of my faith in that description other than yet another misguided attempt to denigrate the value of the Christian Scriptures.

[J Pearce]

Andrew,

"..but I am a Christian and I do believe (for reasons stated above). I don't have a choice about believing because I remain unimpressed by the arguments in favour of disbelief."

Ok, but what is it you actually believe in? Do you believe in the existence of God, or do you believe in a system of control codified by what is essentially an assemblage of myths, partial historical accounts and social engineering manifesto?

Where is the evidence that the Bible is "more than the sum of its parts"? Except inside your head? Tom Jackson raises that hoary old fallback about "free will" - yet you claim that you "don't have a choice"!

And this, to me, is the entire encapsulation of the falsity of believing in Christianity - rather than, say, just believeing there might be a God after all, unbound by enforced conceptual parameters. It seems to me that Christians voluntarily surrender their free will upon "entry" to the "club" as it were - except in those circumstances when it becomes propitious to invoke the concept of "free will" as a means of rationalising what is essentially an entirely irrational ideology.

It’s the ultimate "get out of jail free" card, really.

[David Palmer]

Christopher,

Probably the best known text in the Bible for real live breathing 21st century Christians is from the 3rd chapter of John's Gospel (mark well J Pearce - not from Leviticus or Deuteronomy which for some reason you don't seem able to get past) and the 16th verse which I took to heart as a 15 yr old teenager:

"For God so loved the world that he gave His only begotten Son that whoever (which can include Christopher and J Pearce) believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life". The following verse goes on to read, "For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world but that the world through Him might be saved".

These are the sorts of texts that give joy and purpose to Christians regardless of denominational label and regardless of whether they are living in Britain or Nigeria or anywhere else you care to think of.

[andrew holden]

"The more I read of your work, the more I deduce a rational humanist lurking in Christian clothing."

Apart from the word 'lurking' may I take that as a complement? Since I believe that my rational humanity is God-given I don't see any inconsistency in it at all. For the same reason I don't feel that my views are in any way morally superior to yours. In the end we both have to make a reasoned case for the morality we adopt - claiming divine backing is merely lazy. The scriptures do contain moral guidance but we still need a rationale for obedience.

You asked "What does being a Christian give you above being, say, a humanist agnostic?" Well in a moral sense nothing much - but I am a Christian and I do believe (for reasons stated above). I don't have a choice about believing because I remain unimpressed by the arguments in favour of disbelief. Therefore I have little choice but to try to behave in a manner which remains true not only to my belief but also to my moral and rational humanity.

As for scripture I agree that it is "a product of human endeavour" but it isn't merely so.

[James O'Connell]

The comparison of this Turkish initiative with the Western Reformation is misleading. The real comparison is with biblical higher criticism that transformed attitudes to the Bible. I am old enough to remember when the vast majority of Christians saw the Bible as one book. Now Christian theologians see it as a collection of documents of varying ages and authority.

It is important also to realise that such discussions are taking place in many parts of the Muslim world. We should look with sympathy on those Muslims who are trying to re-think their scriptures, and who will in my opinion prevail in the longer run.

James O'Connell

[Christopher]

David Palmer,

it isn't so much atheists who foist an ahistorical flat template on the Bible in an attempt to bludgeon Christians but fundamentist literalist christianists who think they are the only ones who "get" the mind of God and consequently the only ones he loves. After all, can you really love someone you are going to send to Hell? That's where we are all bound if we don't square up to their interpretations of the Bible or accept their doctrines of salvation. Rather than atheists it is they who try to foist their view of "what God wants" and "God's plan" on the rest of us, Christians and non-Christians alike.

[Tom Jackson]

"Consider the following: how much of an ignoramus does a Christian have to be, to ignore the weight of historical evidence against what you claim Christianity is supposed to be all about?"

Once again, J Pearce, you choose to ignore the greatest gift that God has given us; the freewill to go our own way and make a mess of things!

As a young man, I took great pleasure in maintaining my own cars. With the aid of an Hayes manual, the mechanic's 'bible', I would take them apart and put them back together again.

Now, if I had chosen not to fit a gasket when replacing an oil filter or to set the torque wrench to an incorrect setting when tightening the cylinder head bolts, if I have misinterpreted the instructions in the manual or not bothered to read the appropriate section, I dare say I would have had problems getting the car back on the road in working order.

Could God have prevented the atrocities and bloodshed committed in His name throughout history. When a young child is ravaged by cancer, the parents distraught by the bedside, could God step in and restore that child to health?

Of course! An all powerful Creator could all these things in the same way as He could have been created us as automatons to live exactly as He would chose, only doing His Will, what is right. But He chose to give us the freedom to develop and to go our own way, to do evil instead of good, to misinterpret His teaching and to 'spin' it to suit our own selfish objectives on occasions..

And as far as the teaching itself is concerned, would you try to educate a class of six year olds using language that only adults can understand and concepts only those with some maturity can assimilate? Through Moses, God gave a covenant to the nation of Israel that reflected the circumstances and the times they were living in.

Jesus Christ came to establish a new covenant. "He takes away the first that He may establish the second" (Hebrews 10:9). As civilisation becomes established, Christ comes to teach "adults", all God's people, Jews and Gentiles.

Throughout the ages, Christians still managed to create an awful mess at times but then, we are only human after all. The teaching and the power of God are not diminished because of Man's failings.

[J Pearce]

Mr Holden,

The more I read of your work, the more I deduce a rational humanist lurking in Christian clothing. Why bother with the inherent flaws in such a constricting belief system (constricted by being anchored to the Bible) and do away with all the ideological baggage? Belief in "God" is not dependent upon the "contrived", "artificial constructs" (not my words!!!) of the Bible and Biblical interpretation.

Most Christian contributors on this thread have all responded in the same vein to my original criticisms, by deflating the relevance of the Bible and admitting it is entirely a product of human endeavour.

Ergo, wherefore Christianity? What does being a Christian give you above being, say, a humanist agnostic? Is it really all about feeling morally superior, then?

[J Pearce]

Mr Palmer,
You've not really rebutted anything, rather, you've just rehashed the same defence, which to me seems to amount to:

"I'm a sophisticated, educated westerner and I've learnt to ignore all the awkward Biblical bits, such that I'm more concerned in tweaking infinite meanings from the remaining texts to justify my somewhat precarious worldview". Or some such.

Problem #1: not all Christians are sophisticated westerners - possibly the majority - and many of them do literally believe the Bible. In your eyes, are they any less entitled to believe what they do? Concrete examples would be the Akinolist movement in Africa, a burgeoning power base.

How do you explain the diversity of belief in what you claim is Gods "infallible" word and how do you explain the centuries of murder and inhumanity that has come about as a result of this divergence, not least within Christianity itself? Why would any "supreme being" sanction the killing of his own?

This historical reality is, in effect, is a direct contradiction of your earlier argument regarding the literal readings of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, which appear to be based on the rejection of the image of God as capricious, vengeful and outright psychotic.

According to your take, literal readings are to be read in the context of the culture/society they were formed. To you, God is not, in actuality, the tyrant presented by the early books, this being the fatal flaw of atheist literal criticisms.

Yet given the carnage wrought by Christians since Biblical times, is this not in itself absolute evidence that God is, in fact, as bloodthirsty and inhumane as painted by the early texts? Where is your sublime God as envinced by John and Luke?

He certainly doesn't appear to be present in the actions of Christians down the ages (wars, the Inquisition, the raping of Central/South America, the destruction of ancient indigenous tribes the world over, Spanish conquest, atrocities in the New World…right up to alleged collaboration with the Nazis). The list of crimes commited by Christians in the name of the Almighty is endless. Not exactly evidence for a just and peaceful God, is it?

Consider the following: how much of an ignoramus does a Christian have to be, to ignore the weight of historical evidence against what you claim Christianity is supposed to be all about?

I also read the following comment with incredulity: "but with God we Christians aver, superintending the process so that we have no difficulty in acknowledging the Bible as the Word of God even as we can recognise human authorship.

Aside from the fact this statement fully vindicates my previous criticisms of the "cake and eat it" variety, you criticise Alistair for his comments about Jesus - implying his statement is so ridiculous as not to warrant further comment - yet in reality, there is no defintive evidence to suggest the JC of the Bible ever existed, only historical supposition based on fragmentary evidence.

Exactly the same standards can be applied to your statement - there is no verifiable evidence of any kind that some sort of "supreme being" has anything to do with the Bible, except the evidence that exists in the minds of those who actually want to believe it.

So please tell me, what is the point in engaging with the likes of yourself in rational debate, when your premise is rooted firmly in the irrational? The belief that the undetectable, undefinable hand of the Divine has touched all those who have, in one way or another, contributed to the collection of texts we refer to as the Bible today.

Your justification rests entirely upon the premise "It exists in my mind therefore it must be true". Does that sound like a reasonable, educated, intelligent basis for dialogue to you?

[David Palmer]

J Pearce,

I read your rant with interest.

Tell me on what basis you as an atheist or at least an unbeliever, are able to tell Christians how to read their book, the Bible? What special qualities do you have for this task? What insights?

I imagine you object when creationists lampoon the theory of evolution, when they demand equal time for their teaching of creationism in the classroom. You do so for their mangling and misrepresentation of evolution, for leading the children astray and you may well be right.

Let me tell you in as few words as I can how Christians view the Bible and I will do so in point form.

The Bible was written over a 1,500 year period or thereabouts with many different human authors, but with God we Christians aver, superintending the process so that we have no difficulty in acknowledging the Bible as the Word of God even as we can recognise human authorship.

The Bible is written in many different literary genres: narrative, poetry, wisdom, apocalyptic, historical, prophetic, each genre with its own way of being read. Contra, Hitchens et al not all of the Bible is to be read literally – this is the atheists first error which makes them look stupid in the eyes of Christians

There is a historical development through the Bible, a linkage to be sure based around the notions of covenant: promise and deliverance, but a development as well. In the first five books of the Bible, books that atheists drool over and never get past, we have the story of God’s action in forming the people of Israel and there is no getting past all the killing and pillage. Also, in these books – Leviticus and Deuteronomy - are the passages that atheists salivate over, the stoning of adulterers and so on as integral to the moral code that God’s people at that time are to live under. And I guess that code might have had some beneficial outcomes for that society.

When we come to the New Testament and the life of Jesus we find much of the Old Testament law is done away with – the ten commandments remain as does the injunction to love God and neighbour, but gone are the daily sacrifices (Jesus becomes that “once for all” sacrifice for sins), gone are the ritual cleansings and the stoning of the adulterers. Jesus says we are to love not just our neighbour but our enemies as well, even atheists. When the Pharisees want Jesus to cast the first stone at the woman caught in adultery, he suggests that the one who is without sin should cast the first stone, and not even he of whom no record can be produced suggesting that he sinned, not even he will cast a stone but rather gently says to the woman “go and sin no more.” You will find this in the 8th chapter of John’s Gospel and also worth reading in this regard is the 7th chapter of Luke’s Gospel from verse 36 on. So when atheists want to foist a flat, ahistorical literalist template onto the Bible and attempt to bludgeon Christians with it we just stand back and shake our heads that there could be such ignoramuses willing to display their abject ignorance in print.

Alistair,

Once you deny Jesus as a historical personage, there really isn’t much point debating you, certainly not on a forum such as this

[Tom Jackson]

"I'm not a fundamentalist and don't feel the need to apologise for it."

There is no need for any apology, Andrew. It is clear from God's Word as we progress through the Old Testament into the New Testament that as Christians, we are expected to look afresh each day at what He has said - and since Christ is alive and amongst us all the time - what He is saying.

But you are never going to convince an atheist or an unbeliever of this. Their attacks on religion lose all credibility unless they can view the Bible (especially the Old Testament) as firmly set in stone as the tablets Moses brought down from Mount Sinai. That is why any 'interpretation' causes them problems.

Of course, there are suggestions of ambiguity which can result, for example, in the confusion of interpretation that leads to refusal of blood transfusions. That is to be expected since, even for God, communicating the manner in which He requires us to behave in a changing and developing world through language which, in itself, is changing and evolving, presents some difficulties.

As Christians, for the most part, we overcome this with prayer and through a sharing fellowship but this is an anathema to an unbeliever because they either cannot understand or refuse to accept a relationship with someone or something that cannot be seen, touched or heard by their criteria.

Therefore any discussion which tries to determine if the Bible is 'perfect' is a total waste of time. As Christians, we have a framework with substance against which we can test our attitudes and behaviour. Where blood transfusion, for example, is concerned, I have absolutely no problem and tested against Christian teaching, there is majority support for that interpretation.

What does an atheist have for how he determines what his behaviour should be? They will tell you that their morality comes from empathy with their fellow human beings, that their moral and ethical codes develop from the fact that we are 'tribal' animals, that we have to live in a community and that demands a certain code of behaviour.

Well, given the increasingly secular nature of our community, that "certain code of behaviour" is beginning to collapse in an accelerating rush of self-interest and anti-social behaviour. Even those with responsibility for ensuring the stability and prosperity of our society, in government and related organisations, appear to place more emphasis on retaining power than in being effective.

So while there is plenty of opportunity for the atheist to attack the faith and beliefs the we, as Christians hold, any alternatives which they would support have no cohesion, no structure and certainly no chance of supporting a community such as we have in the UK.

[Christopher]

Every Word, eh Rick? Then just selecting from the Book of Exodus alone what about the following?

Exodus 35:2 Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.

Oh, duh.....only Jews and Seventh-Day Adventists follow this divine command so when are you going to start putting your own congregation of Sunday worshippers to death?

Or this:

21:28 If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be quit.

Let's see what the RSPCA says about this. We know from accounts and video footage of stonings in islamic countries what a cruel and prolonged death it would mean if taken literally. It took several hours to kill a woman recently - how much longer an ox?

Or this:

22:16 And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.
22:17 If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.

The woman shall have no say in it, right, if it is the Word of the Lord?

Unless you take the sensible scholarly attitude to this collection of ancient and often disparate that texts that modern rabbis do, as Irene is constantly pointing out, you are up a fundamentalist creek without a paddle, intellectually and spiritually becalmed. There are horrors aplenty in the Bible for those who want to recruit their god to the side of misogyny, xenophobia and homophobia. There is no single unitary picture of god to be drawn from the pages of the Bible. The god or rather picture of god there presented is the most contradictory creation in the whole of literature, at times psychotic, hateful and murderous, at others loving and caring. The best way to treat the Bible is as a fascinating collection of genres, a little of it historical, much of it fictional. To read it through the new-fangled fundamentalist lens is to turn it into an idol. What you worship is a book - bibliolatry - not the same thing at all as the Word of God as historically understood.

[Rick Beekman]

As A Christian I believe every WOrd in the Bible.

The reason being if you read it over and over and over again all The "Pieces" Fall into Place. Christianity is a Faith not a Religion.
Religion is Pomp And Ceremony with Supposedly "Holy" And "Righteous" men Dress up in Religious Costumes Perform Ceremonies With lots of Razzle-Dazzle And Every Carnal mind just Loves it.

These "Religious" Men usually have a DD Or MA Or even Higher Degree from a well Known University or Seminary and supposedly know all there is about God and His Teachings.
They are even so Intelligent They wear Their Collars Backwards!

What a Group!

[andrew holden]

"You either stand by the Bible as a whole and defend it thus, or you don't. The Bible is either fully historically valid, verifiable and with a fully cogent moral framework, or it isn't. Either the Bible is Gods perfect word, or it isn't. Is that too much to ask?"

Yes! You don't approach any other human enterprise with such high standards so why the Bible? Even if it is the 'Word of God' it is so in the words of fallible men.

Some Christians may believe that the Bible is wholly perfect and free from human failings of any sort but that is not the only possible position. Most of us accept that the scriptures must be weighed and interpreted in order to get at the heart of the matter. So that's hard and requires a little thoughtful discrimination - tough!

I'm not a fundamentalist and don't feel the need to apologise for it.

[andrew holden]

"And in that sense, whether you like it or not, faith and reason have nothing in common.

Interesting debate though."

Perhaps - but we have to be speaking the same language. To be fair I have not been talking about faith in the sense of a belief in God but faith in the sense of a system of beliefs and practices. In this thread we've been discussing the latter sense not the former.

I agree that faith in God is not rational - though I think I would say that it a-rrational rather than irrational. Physical evidence in this sense is a diversion since we are not talking about a physical being whose presence or absence can be scientifically determined.

Neverthless I continue to maintain that the outworking of belief in God in a body of 'faith' can be entirely rational. Even believers don't merely assent to something because (they believe) God said it. They usually have good debateable reasons why God would have said it and why human beings should go along with it - otherwise it's all just moral arbitrary despotism.

[Brandon]

Mr Pearce,
The black and white nature of your argument is counterproductive. No meaningful argument is ever only about one side or the other; every argument, like every system and human being, exists mostly in the realm of grey.

You say "either the Bible is fully historically valid, verifiable and with a fully cogent moral framework or it isn't", but this kind of extreme perspective misses the whole point of human endeavor. No system ever conceived, whether religious, political, economic or philosophical, can even begin to rise to the standard you have demanded. By virtue of its innate humanness, all systems will be flawed; there can be no perfection. This is why inquiry, analysis debate, and dialogue are so important: they allow us to identify those areas of a system that are flawed and to improve on them.

Humanity has engaged in what you deride as a "pick n mix" strategy since the dawn of civilization, whether we are talking about religion (Christianity and Islam), politics (the Roman Republic and Empire, the British Empire, the United States) or philosophy (Christian Humanism). I am not a devout Christian, but then I am also not a devout Nitzschean, yet I see tremendous value in aspects of each--just as I also see tremendous flaws in aspects of each. The Gospels do not have to be completely and utterly wrong because so much of Deuteronomy is offensive.

This kind of monolithic determinism also misses a key point: each of the Gospels was written by a single author within a short period of time, but each book of the Old Testament was written by multiple authors, often over hundreds of years. The Bible is a patchwork quilt of books, many of them heavily influenced by non-Judaeo-Christian cultures (Sumerians, Babylonians, and Greeks in particular), and, consequently, is and always has been a contrived whole. The individual books were never written to be compiled together, much less in a linear, cogent and uniform manner. The Old Testament was put together by later ancient Jewish priests, and the New Testamant was compiled by Christian councils in the first five centuries or so after the death of Christ, both through a very deliberately choosy process undertaken with much gnashing of teeth. Most Christians do not know this, but most atheists do not either, yet it is fundamental. The Bible is one of the most artifical constructs in human history; that does not, however, make anything in it necessarily wrong.

With every book I read--and every argument I consider--I'll choose what resonates as true and challenge what I see as untrue. That's what we're all here to do!

[emanuel appel]

a letter from America

To all who whitewash Islam,

Tolerance in the face of viciousness is cowardice or self deception.

"Islam" is a set of symbols on a page, same as Christianity. What's important is what the followers do. So far, Islam's apologists are secularists who desperately want to believe that their fellow citizens mean them no harm. The evidence is to the contrary.

Second, there's misguided Jew Hater whose philosophy is "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Well, at least I can respect the consistency but you'll find that your new found friend will eventually devour you. But, that's for later.

What's pathetic about Islam's friends is their ability to turn a blind eye to the reality much like the British pinkos who were all starry eyed about the Soviet Union in the 1920's and 30's. I can see people being so BORED with their post victorian Mary Poppins Britain that some exciting foreigners fit the bill.

Islam and its effect on its followers in the West is no joke. Unless you put your foot down firmly, your societies will gradually become Islamified based on their numbers, their economic and political pressures, and threats of violence.

[Alistair]

David, of course believers use reason in aspects of their daily lives. Being simplistic, we all reason that sticking a hand in a fire will hurt, so we don’t do it. So we all use reason in our daily lives, whether we have a faith or not.

Andrew's point, however, was that believers use reason to proscribe their indisputably irrational beliefs in a fantasy world of supernatural deities. This is equivalent to me saying it is rational for me to use reason to proscribe my belief in the fairies at the bottom of my garden. You cannot lose sight of the rationality or irrationality of the basic premise.

The reality is the opposite of what Andrew asserts. Believers do not use reason to proscribe matters of faith – they use their faith to regulate their perspective on the real world. That is why things like this happen - some believers ‘reason’ that their god will protect them if they jump into the lion’s cage at the zoo, but they tend to find that doesn’t work. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/5049082.stm. This is a perfect example of someone using faith to interpret the real world, not using reason to interpert faith!

You claim that Jesus is a historical personage. I disagree, and there are many who do so. Try the books of former monk James McCabe, or Losing Faith in Faith by former US evangelical Dan Barker, and of course the work by Professor Wells.

But whether you say Jesus did exist or I say he didn’t, it doesn’t actually matter a jot. Any religion is simply a human activity that can be easily accepted, but only within the framework of the reality that it creates for itself. So, if you accept the existence of whatever god that your chosen religion proposes, then of course you will have no problem seeing logic, reason and rationalism in all that follows as a consequence. A modern example: if you believe the intergalactic Xenu murdered millions of aliens in the earth’s volcanoes 78m years ago, leaving remnants of them called Thetans in each of us here today, then you will have no trouble believing that a process can exist whereby you can become “clear” of these Thetans and you can cease to be a Suppressive Person.

However, most of the entities, gods or whatever, that are the basis of religious thought and action cannot have their existence validated by direct observation or reason. And in that sense, whether you like it or not, faith and reason have nothing in common.

Interesting debate though.

[J Pearce]

Mr Palmer,

You seem to be engaging the standard intellectual Christian defence, which I find is based entirely on either wilful ignorance or hypocrisy. Take the whole Hitchens thing. Why does his criticism of specific books make his arguments irrelevant? It appears to me that when Christians are faced with the most obvious literal arguments against them, they just ignore them, by basically saying "oh, but we don't take those particular parts of the Bible seriously at all. We already know they're rubbish, is that all you've got?".

That, to me, is utterly self-sustaining hypocrisy of the highest order! Conveniently ignoring all the difficult bits of the Bible but claiming that other bits of it are relevant, ergo the belief system as a whole promulgated by Christianity is fully jusitifiable. It’s the classic "have our cake and eat it", pick 'n mix strategy. I read Christians employ this argument time and time again, like some kind of autonomous defense mechanism. Its just not intellectually sound or acceptable - it’s the logic of the playground.

You either stand by the Bible as a whole and defend it thus, or you don't. The Bible is either fully historically valid, verifiable and with a fully cogent moral framework, or it isn't. Either the Bible is Gods perfect word, or it isn't. Is that too much to ask?

I've read on these pages numerous assertions from Christians, that nobody has essentially improved upon the arguments against Christianity since they were first articulated hundreds of years ago and that modern philosophers and pop critics are merely rehashing old arguments.

That may be true, but it appears blindingly obvious to me, at least, that Christians have never actually confronted the original arguments in the first place and that the most damning criticisms of Christianity are still the most obvious, literal ones - because they've never been rebutted, they have only ever been ignored.

You don't need an intimate knowledge of the Bible to demonstrate how fatally flawed it is, in respect to internal moral cogency and indeed scientific possibility. Yet Christians continue to try and gloss over these failings, whilst continuing to perpetuate the utterly unporven and unprovable assertion that Christianity is God's one true religion and that the Bible is God's word. With respect, Mr. Palmer, your criticisms of Alistair are based more on Faith than an examination of the raw facts.

[andrew holden]

"Any endeavor to embrace alternative perspectives and inquire honestly and openly about one's own way of life is to be celebrated."

Closed minds can happen on all sides of the debate.

An excellent post Brandon. Thanks.

[David Palmer]

"Faith and reason have nothing in common. It is not a function of reason to believe in something without being able to point to any evidence of its existence"

With respect Alistair, this is pretty irrational stuff.

The argument you offer is so juvenile I should not even be responding to it.

However I'm an easy prey to temptation. For starters, people of faith employ reason all the time - take their literary output, take the construction of a sermon based on careful attention to the analysis of Biblical text, supported by a variety of historical, literary, social, philosophical analyses.

Jesus Christ is a historical personage with considerable detail as to his life and the meaning of his life. The earliest manuscripts go back to the third century AD. The history of the church is well documented and the fact that we know of the thinking of ancient Greeks and Romans is because the monks copied their works.

If you wish to dismiss this, then do so on rational grounds and then we can debate the issue. The thing I found myself writing repeatedly on my copies of the books of Dennett, Harris, Onfray, Hitchens, etc, were the words, "assertion without demonstration".

One of the problems in this kind of argument is that Christians are prepared to read the atheists, whilst the atheists do not return the compliment. This is seen when Hitchens thinks he can knock over the Bible in 25 pages in 'God is not Great' and only demonstrates what an ignoramus he is with respect to the Bible. The only books of the Bible he seems to know are Leviticus and Deuteronomy where he turns into such a strictly literal fundamentalist that we Christians shake our heads in disbelief that such a public and otherwise intelligent, erudite person could be so uninformed and not know it.

[Brandon]

It is essential to remember that we are talking about an enormous grey area, and any absolute statement--like "Islam is imperialism with a religious face", "Faith and reason have nothing in common", and "It is impossible to interpret Christian teaching to support such an instruction as we find it today"--are wrong. Islam, like Christianity and Judaisim and any other human movement, has individuals and groups who have acted in ways we would laud and individuals and groups who have acted in ways we would condemn. Historicaly speaking, for example, many European explorers made Christianity "imperialism with a religious face" between 1492 and 1900, the Renaissance was initiated and dominated by those Christian humanists who applied Classical reason to their theology in the specific belief that faith and reason had much in common, and Christians from abortion clinic bombers to generals in the US Army have invoked Christianity in killing other Christians and Muslims in the last few years. What is important here is that Turkish Muslims have initiated a process of looking at their faith more openly and critically. Of course, this process and whatever new interpretations of the Hadith it produces will not be persuasive to all Muslims, especially those living in Arab countries. Of course not. But it will prove persuasive to some, and out of that will grow more questions, more debates, more investigation, and more openness. No one with any knowledge of Arab-Turk relations or extremist Islam will argue differently--after all, political and ethnic rivalries and religious extremism will always exist, as they have in each of the three monotheistic faiths. This endeavor to reexamine the Hadith may not help in the fight against al Qaeda or Islamic Jihad, but it isn't designed to. Any endeavor to embrace alternative perspectives and inquire honestly and openly about one's own way of life is to be celebrated--indeed, many Christians and Jews, including those in the White House and the Knesset, could benefit from exactly that. Perhaps most importantly, Western Christians can learn from this endeavor that many of their assumptions about Muslims and what they stand for are wrong, and that many Muslims embrace the reason, inquiry and dialogue embodied in the Renaissance and Enlightenment. The ignorance this initiative may best help fight is that in non-Muslim countries.

[andrew holden]

"Andrew, try reading some Robert Heinlein, the Amercian sci-fi writer who said "theologians can convince themselves of anything.""

I am a great Sci Fi fan myself and I certainly wouldn't argue with Heinlein's point - I just don't think that it discredits all theological and philosophical (you left that one out!) discourse. Just because it's hard doesn't mean we should just give up.

Here's a favourite SF link of my own (one that needs engaging with at a very deep level - not just a simplistic one!):

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ylAsZQyOBMk

[Alistair]

Andrew, try reading some Robert Heinlein, the Amercian sci-fi writer who said "theologians can convince themselves of anything." Clearly they have done for centuries, and now they are apparently trying to convince themselves of something different to what they have convinced themselves of before.

What you are saying to me is that it is perfectly rational for religious believers to use their experience of the real world to interpret and regulate what is essentially a fantasy world.

What we see put into practice, however, by religious leaders, theologians, gurus, etc is something that is exactly the other way round - using their fantasy world to attempt to regulate and interpret the real world.

But I suspect you disagree!

[emanuel appel]

a letter from America

Dear All,

Islam is Imperialism with a Religious face. It was born through the sword and any suggestion that it become humble is whistling in the dark.

The letter was described as the first Moslem collective letter to the Israel collective since 600 AD. Let's think about that. Jews lived under Moslem rule from Grananda to Bagdad since 600 AD. Those who like to blind themselves re the tyrannical nature of Moslem rule like to refer to medieval Moslem Spain as a " Golden Time" for Israel and the Moslems. The Moslems never addressed any such letter to the Jews at the time as far as I know.

The reason being is that Israel was so weak that she was held in contempt. There was no reason to "dialogue" except with individual Jews urging them to come to Mohammed. This letter is simply a sign that Israel is hitting back when molested.

Too, this letter is a product of a secular Jewish hobby. This Woolf Institute may be rare in Britain but as common as fish and chips in the U.S.

Jews who've done well selling widgets decide to spend their retirement years trying to fix the world by subsidising eggheads in academic settings; thus, the Woolf Institute. It's just expensive self-gratification much better handled by a Soho demi-mondaine.

[andrew holden]

"Faith and reason have nothing in common."

Well you would say that wouldn't you - arrogantly ignoring the application of rational thought to the realm of faith by philosophers and theologians over several millennia.

Try reading some Hooker....

[Antonio]

I think that Pope Benedict's speech in Ratisbona is still bearing fruit.
First, a letter to the Vatican.
Now, a letter to the leaders of the Jewish community.
Of course fundamentalists are not going to enter in any kind of dialogue.
But am I wrong to think that Ratisbona was not such a wrong idea as the media wanted us to believe?

[Alistair]

"Most religious people live in the real world where reason is carefully applied to matters of faith"

No, Andrew Holden, I would disagree. Faith and reason have nothing in common. It is not a function of reason to believe in something without being able to point to any evidence of its existence.

It is not a function of reason to believe there are fairies at the bottom of my garden, for example. Yet there is no more or less evidence for the existence of these fairies than there is for any god or gods. Without evidence, we simply end up with make-believe, and you can believe in anything you like. I think as humans in the 21st century we ought to be moving away from such superstitions.

I don't think you can claim on the one hand that religious people live in the real world, then claim they apply real world principles to faith, a belief in something for which they have no proof.

[David Palmer]

"Where Islam really has to take a leap of faith is in developing a theology of living humbly in the diaspora, as Jews have learned to do."

This is a point well made.

No one should get too excited by this development any time soon. The Arabs and not the Turks give direction to Islam.

[andrew holden]

"It still gives the impression of organised religion making things up as it goes along. It is reminiscent of the Vatican dropping Limbo in 2006 - in other words, a case of "we've been making this up for a few hundred years, now we've decided to make up something else"."

So secularists are allowed to revise their theories, beliefs and practices but to confirm your prejudices religious people are not allowed to apply reason and rationality in order to revise their beliefs.

Most religious people live in the real world where reason is carefully applied to matters of faith and morality and both are open to change as our context changes - I'm sorry that we are not all irrational fundamentalists but there it is.

[Babbling Brook]

Andrew Bostom has dealt with this latest bit of Da'wa, Taqiyya and Kitman on the part of the Moslems on his blogsite at which you can also read the Moslem document:

http://www.andrewbostom/org/blog/2008/02/26/the-"dialogue"-of-denial/

The names and activities of Tariq Ramadan, grandson of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood and who is himself forbidden a visa into the US and that of Prince Hasan bin Talal of Jordan who has been funding several schools of "islamic teaching" in European countries and the US, are excellent pointers as to the real nature of this Letter, as with the 'Common Word' letter sent to Christians. Both letters presume upon Western ignorance of Islam and especially of Muhammed and both letters are essentially 'invitations' to accept Islam's 'deity' and Islam's 'prophet'. Andrew Bostom's article, in listing the Koran's and Hadiths' words on the Jews will give some idea of the magnitude of any attempt to "reform" Islam. No one has yet broached the subject of Muhammed, his words, deeds and character and why such a man should be regarded as worthy of veneration.

[Tom Jackson]

The real issue is what the core beliefs are and to what extent any "interpretations" are allowed to distort or manipulate those beliefs. This latter point, of course, is entirely dependant on the power and strength of the clerics and the susceptibility and vulnerability of any followers.

Those more cynical would argue that any belief system attracts the susceptible and the vulnerable because those who are more enlightened? intelligent? resourceful? grounded? less impressionable? would soon reject concepts such as a Being no-one can see or touch or hear.

As a Christian, the only decision I would have to make if someone tried to convince me to strap on a backpack of explosives in the name of Christ, would be whether to throw him out the door or report him to the authorities. It is impossible to interpret Christian teaching to support such an instruction as we understand it today.

Sadly, that has not been the case in the past and it is a question of to what extent ignorance and reliance upon so-called religious leaders who had an agenda was the cause of Christian brutality and persecution in the past.

Will Islam come out of the Dark Ages? As Irene has commented, a "theology of living humbly" seems to be a good start. A rejection of the ambiguity that exists in the Koran and the hadith of those teachings that can be interpreted as promoting or condoning violence and terrorist acts against non-believers would be another step in the right direction.

And that really is the test. Because the world community today is in such proximity with one another and interconnected in so many ways, that to accommodate or co-exist with people who step outside the boundaries of international standards of behaviour and values that are fundamental to peace and prosperity is unacceptable.

The Islamic world has to grow up and purge itself of those radical clerics whose interference and influence in their nation's and people's lives can only lead to conflict.

But that isn't going to happen. Because whatever a reasonably Westernised and modern nation such as Turkey does, the basic tenets of Islam cannot support or allow such change. The most we can hope for in the West is to keep the lid on the situation and to present a united and powerful front to discourage Islamic nations from achieving their objective of making Islam the only religion we can follow.

[Dr. Irene Lancaster FRSA]

Yes, the link to the letter is not working. I wonder if you could post it in full

(rg writes: will do, give me five mins)

[Alistair]

It would be useful to know how many of the "theologians" engaged in re-interpreting the Hadith are women?

Welcome in some ways, this is a pointless exercise in others. There are countless "interpretations" in every religion of what the god or gods in question were trying to tell us. Having one more seems neither here nor there.

It still gives the impression of organised religion making things up as it goes along. It is reminiscent of the Vatican dropping Limbo in 2006 - in other words, a case of "we've been making this up for a few hundred years, now we've decided to make up something else"

The emperor still has no clothes.

[emanuel appel]

a letter from America

Dear All,

This is yet another smokescreen by those who insist on closing their eyes to political Islam. I haven't been able to access the "letter" by clicking on the link but I would appreciate one if available.

There are two things to point out:

1. The vain hope that a Turk's religious decision will affect the rest of the Arab world. This is total nonsense to anyone familiar with the congregational nature of Islam. The Arab will do what he wants whenever he wants to. There is no Pope, no Martin Luther among them.

2. What is the relevance of Moslems wanting "better relations" with local Jewish communities? The former are the ones who've poisoned the well and what will the pitifully small English Jewish community do for them? Oh, I get it, the "international Zionist conspicracy" will deliver Israel to them on a platter! That is Moslem thinking.

This is yet another example of wooly headed secular Jewish philanthropy putting money in the hands of our enemies thinking that we can "buy" peace. You don't buy peace, you win it on the battlefield.