Muslim Intellectual Calls for "Protestant Islam

[peterd]

Interesting Article on religion
_______________________________
To view this Special Dispatch in HTML, visit: www.memri.org/bin/opener_latest.cgi?ID=SD119806 .

Dr. Bassam Tahhan, a Syrian-born French professor of Arabic literature, teaches at the prestigious Henri IV secondary school in Paris and is an expert on the Koran. In his numerous lectures and interviews, he advocates "Protestant Islam," which he defines as Islam that allows freedom of thought and permits questioning the Sunna, abrogating hadiths not grounded in the Koran, and reinterpreting the Koran in light of modern values. Tahhan recently attended a UNESCO conference on human rights in Morocco, where he gave the following interview to the independent French-language Moroccan daily Telquel:(1)


"To Be a Rationalist is to Acknowledge That the Orthodox Approach is Fundamentally Wrong"

Telquel: "You characterize yourself as one who interprets the Koran rationally. What do you mean by that?"

Tahhan: "To read the Koran rationally is to accept that the Koran is open [to interpretation] and has many meanings. The tradition regards the Koran as one-dimensional and fixed. This approach is not rationalist. To be a rationalist is to accept that each era, with its [particular] methods and discoveries, presents its own reading of the Koran, and this is the way it will be until the end of days. To be a rationalist is to acknowledge that the orthodox approach is fundamentally wrong since it does not accept the multiplicity of readings."

Telquel: "You are one of a handful of experts around the world on the different versions of the Koran. How did you come to have a passion for this topic?"

Tahhan: "Let me remind you of a historical fact that is accepted by all. In the year 901 - an unfortunate year for Muslims - a Muslim qadi named Ibn Mujahid canonized [one version of] the Koran. Before that, there were many different versions of the Koran, and this did not upset the good Muslims!"


Examining the Different Versions of the Koran Reveals "Its Wide Range of Possible Meanings"

Tahhan: "Today, Muslim thought evolves within a very rigid framework, namely the framework of the Shari'a. I, on the other hand, refer to the sacred scriptures. Specifically, I allow myself to draw upon the various [versions of the] 'sacred scriptures,' since there are many of them. This is a fact. In order to see this, one must merely read the chapter Kutub Al-Masahif ('The Books of the Koran') in Ibn Nadim's book Al-Fihrist. Ibn Nadim enumerates several versions of the Koran which were not recognized by the Caliphs. He explicitly refers to mushaf al-rasul (the Prophet's Koran)! Remember that, ever since the Koran was canonized, we have been referring to Mushaf 'Uthman ['Uthman's version of the Koran].

"The German orientalist Theodor Noeldeke wrote several volumes on the history of the various Korans. Today the Arabic translation of his book is being circulated in secret. Jews and Christians readily accept the different versions of their sacred scriptures. Why shouldn't we? When you examine the different versions from different perspectives - sociological, philosophical, juridical and linguistic - you reveal the Koran's wide range of possible meanings. This breathes new life into [the Koran], instead of petrifying it for all time!"


"Why Can't the Word of God Be Multifaceted? Why Can't the Koran Be True in Its Different Versions?"

Telquel: "You do understand, though, that it is difficult for believing [Muslims] to accept your arguments, [since they] believe that there is only one truth, which stems from a divine revelation and is recorded in one single book, namely the Koran."

Tahhan: "I allow myself to search for the historical truth. I believe that it is my right and duty to check the sources. Who decreed that the Koran is monolithic because the word of God is one? Why can't the word of God be multifaceted? Why can't the Koran be true in its different versions? God never deprived man of his freedom of thought. God created history, and allows it to unfold. But he never deprived human beings of the right to manage their own affairs in the course of history. Arab and Muslim history - the history which bores our children in school - is a history of palaces; it is not a social history. When our elite [finally] examines the social history of Islam, no one will find it strange that researchers are excited about examining the various versions of the Koran!"


"As a Protestant Muslim, I... Challenge the Over-Application of the Shari'a"

Telquel: "You find it unfortunate that Islam is limited to the Shari'a. Must we become 'Protestant Muslims' in order to set the Shari'a aside?"

Tahhan: "As a Protestant Muslim, I do not merely challenge the over-application of the Shari'a. I believe that basing Islam [only] on the Five Pillars is a narrow approach. I say that Islam has many dimensions: the judicial dimension which deals with ethics, the theological dimension that has to do with philosophy, and the mystical dimension which has to do with socio-psychology and spirituality. I wish that the training of theologians in Muslim countries would consider all these various dimensions. When you limit religious teaching to the Shari'a, you impoverish it. That is why I completely support the pioneering reforms of [Moroccan] Minister Ahmad Tawfiq, including the modern reforms implemented by [the Moroccan institute of] Dar Al-Hadith Al-Hassania..."


"We Should Found a New Community... of Protestant Muslims"

Telquel: "For many, 'Islam' and 'Protestant' [are concepts that] do not go together. How do you reconcile them?"

Tahhan: "We should found a new community: the community of Protestant Muslims. Its roots already exist in [Muslim] history. This community would promote a return to the word of God, since the overwhelming majority of prophetic hadiths are subject to serious questioning and suspicion. A Protestant Muslim has only one goal: to track down the truth to its very source. He has only one guiding principle: never to let himself be content with the so-called revealed truth. Freedom of thought is a God-given gift that should be honored by Muslims."


Why Should One Religious School Be Better Than Another?

Telquel: "You often object to the dictates of the religious schools regarding religious practices. Why is that a problem?"

Tahhan: "Why should one [religious] school be better than another? For example: Abu Hanifa accepts the testimony of a Muslim woman, whereas the other schools reject it along with the testimonies of Jews and Christians - and thus treat the Muslim woman as an apostate! Why should [we believe that] Malik is right and not Abu Hanifa? Why should I be considered a less devout Muslim if I follow the directives of Al-Tabari (a brilliant exegete who was murdered by obscurantists) rather than those of [Ibn] Hanbal? God granted me freedom of thought and I intend to make use of it!"


"Al-Shafi'i is Dangerous Because" He Gives the Same Status to the Sunna and to the Koran

Telquel: "You say that [Imam] Al-Shafi'i is dangerous because he replaced the Koran with the Sunna. What do you mean by that?"

Tahhan: "There was always a tendency to supplement the Koran with the Sunna. This tendency is questionable since the Koran is defined as the Sunna of God and his Prophet! Various historical factors gradually led the Sunna to become an indispensable supplement to the Koran, to the point that it superseded the Koran. Remember that the Koran never mentions [the practice of] stoning, but [only] whipping. Likewise, the Koran does not explicitly [mandate] the death penalty for apostates (la ikraha fi din). The Koran doesn't totally prohibit [the drinking of] wine... Al-Shafi'i is dangerous because, in his book 'Rissala,' he explains that the Koran and the Sunna can be given the same status. Al-Shafi'i is dangerous because he created a certain ambiguity: he turned the fundamental text [of Islam] into a twofold text [consisting of the Koran and the Sunna], to the point where the Sunna came to impinge on the word of God. Unfortunately, [even] in the 21st century, the orthodox world still fail

"We should also have the right to [apply] a diversified reading of the Koran in religious ruling. The [status of the] Sunna must be redefined. Why should those who believe only in the Koran be expelled from the Sunni community?"

Telquel: "You say that Islam did not abolish slavery. This is not what we were taught in school..."

Tahhan: "Many suras deal with slaves, for example with abid [slaves] and ma malakat aymanukum ['those whom you own'], which clearly refers to women captured in war. Islam is against slavery, but no sura explicitly forbids it. This shows that it is necessary to come up with a new historical and sociological reading of the scriptures. And since you offer me the opportunity to do so, let me call upon the [religious] authorities. Our orthodox religious scholars take the liberty of abrogating the sacred text, so why don't they go all the way and abrogate everything that infringes on the universal rights of Muslim women? The problem is that the religious scholars have only one guiding principle - the domination of women by men, to the extent that they made laws that undermine the [one] positive

granted to Muslim women, namely financial independence... The [notion that] women are naqisat 'aql wa din ['deficient in both intellect and faith'] is an outdated theological fabrication whi

Telquel: "Aren't you being over-optimistic when you say that Morocco holds the seeds of Islamic renewal, including a reform in the status of women?"

Tahhan: "I honestly believe that it is no coincidence that Mohammad VI was the one who ratified the new mudawana [the new Moroccan family code that grants more rights to women]. He is a descendent of [the Prophet Muhammad's daughter] Fatima, who was dispossessed by the followers of Abbas. They are the ones who decreed that women cannot inherit, and thus deprived her descendants of the right to the caliphate... And it was Fatima's descendant... who restored the Muslim women's rights. In this I see the seeds of Protestant Islam - which are potent enough to shake the dust off [Islam] after 13 centuries of stagnation!"

Endnotes:
(1) Telquel (Morocco), Issue 229, June, 2006.

[101ABN]

Bring on the Reformation.

It will probably be followed by another Hundred Years War.

[jfree]

MEMRI is an excellent news source pete, I got into reading it when I worked at a newspaper.

HEHEHE, one thing he doesn't seem to mention is the wars between Catholicism and Protestantism that broke out after the reformation, it soon became a blood bath, and remains one in Ireland to this day, though on a much more mellowed out scale. As 101 said, we would probably see another 100years war, but at least they would be killing eachother and not us . There is still much animosity between Catholics and Protestants, Catholics still think Protestants are heretics who defile the one true church, and Protestants think Catholics are corrupted sellers of indulgences idol worshippers and decadent pagans. I imagine a split in Islam would happen in much the same way, Sharia standing in the place of Catholics, burning heretics at the stake, and Protestant Muslims may start acting like the IRA when backed into a corner, but again, at least we would be left out of it. It would be a miracle for a moderate more compassionate and less bloody version of Islam to emerge.

[peterd]

Memri gives you little bit of the inside on what is going on in the Middle East. At least it gives you some understanding.

[twilly]

jfree,

You're full of it with your nonsensical comparison of orthodox Islam to orthodox Christianity....Catholicism....which is, of course, you favorite "pet hatred".

And with that quip of yours...another falsehood...that Catholics state Protestants are heretics, I know you're that "MrsR" from the HOC forum...hiding out here, under another ID.

You've been told hundreds of times on the HOC forum that the heretics were Luther and King James because they had been members of the Church....same applies to others who had been members of the Church BACK THEN.

The definition of a heretic is one who IS a member of a given church at the time he decides to preach or hold false beliefs. You were never a member of the RCC so don't comtinue to attempt to claim some "victimization" and raise yourself up to the much higher level of a heretic. You know you haven't been able to post this tripe in the HOC forum without butt-kicking counters.

Back to Catholicism and orthodox Islam:

This non-existent, far-fetched comparision equals the comparing of the rock of Gibraltar to a 2" high sand pile....no where near the same size and consistancy.

Muhammed's a pipe-dream had nothing to do with some so-called visit from Archangel St. Gabriel. If Muhammed had really been visited by St. Gabriel he would have told Muhammed what he told Mary....Christ is the Son of God, the Second Person of the Godhead. Therefore, Muhammed proved himself a liar, right off the bat...and he probably didn't even realize the glaringly gross inconsistancy he created with his lie.

The fact that Muhammed mentioned Christ, in whatever capacity he attempted to lower Christ into, he proved he knew of Christ's teachings and that of Christ's Apostles. He knew what Christ states about Himself, including the fact that He admits to being the Son of God. And, Muhammed knew what St. Paul said about the fact that even if an angel says anthing opposite of what Christ says or in "addition" to what Christ says, that so-called angel is not to be listened to....it's a false and a fallen angel.

Muhammed was a mere man who wanted power in the environments he travelled around in. He wanted others to recognize him as "the big cheese" and bow down to him. He was hell bent on gaining political power for himself and, therefore, exactly like the Protestant Revolters, Muhammed was a heretic.

Put THAT in your pipe, jfree/Mrs. R, and smoke away.

[jfree]

Willy as usual, you miss the point. I wasn't after having a catholic/noncatholic bloodbath, but rather saying what may happen should a breakaway happen as it did in Christianity. I could really care less if you call me heretic, it is not your opinion to which I answer, so hack away or smoke away, whichever you prefer. As to the ID, I already said who I was when I signed on here, there was no hiding, it is just shorter and easier, but again feel as you like. This post is about Islam, not about it tenents or theology, but rather about it needing to change in order to fit into this century where slavery, degredation of women, violence and intollerance are no longer acceptable, and where government is believed to be only compassionate when it is secular.

[cataracts]

jfree said:

MEMRI is an excellent news source pete, I got into reading it when I worked at a newspaper.

HEHEHE, one thing he doesn't seem to mention is the wars between Catholicism and Protestantism that broke out after the reformation, it soon became a blood bath, and remains one in Ireland to this day, though on a much more mellowed out scale. As 101 said, we would probably see another 100years war, but at least they would be killing eachother and not us . There is still much animosity between Catholics and Protestants, Catholics still think Protestants are heretics who defile the one true church, and Protestants think Catholics are corrupted sellers of indulgences idol worshippers and decadent pagans. I imagine a split in Islam would happen in much the same way, Sharia standing in the place of Catholics, burning heretics at the stake, and Protestant Muslims may start acting like the IRA when backed into a corner, but again, at least we would be left out of it. It would be a miracle for a moderate more compassionate and less bloody version of Islam to emerge.

jfree,
As in most cases, analogies can only be taken so far. The Muslims obviously have no authority on the meanings of the Koran.Every expert
decides for himself, just like Protestant Christians. Taken with this rather accurate analogy all of the Muslim religion, to this day, is a Protestant version ofwhatever Mohammad saw and heard.
With the Roman Catholic Church we do have authority. This authority brings unity. The Protestants rejected the authority of the Catholic Church and because of this the Protestants have been in confusion ever since.
The Catholic Church does not teach that Protestants are heretics. Luther was a heretic, So was Calvin, and King Henry the VIII, but not the member s of the Protestant Churches.
It is also a Protestant insult to accuse Catholics of selling indulgences, and worshipping idols. What little of this went on 500 years ago is certainly not going on now. To call Catholic 'pagans' is really a low level form of namecallng which means nothing except your desire to hurt Catholics.

From the words and tone of your post it sounds like you are not only afraid of Catholics, but you also hate them. Is this true?

Cataracts

[jfree]

Good greif, you all have a chip on your shoulder the size of the Vatican. I was talking about the hate that does still exist on both sides, but it was in reference to how many feel not my personal feelings, read the post in context. The original article is making the comparison for us to Christianity. I am so not afraid of Catholics nor do I hate them, one of my closest girlfriends is Catholic, all her kids go to Catholic school and she attends mass every Sunday, she is very devout, we discuss things all the time.

[cataracts]

peterd said:

Interesting Article on religion
_______________________________
To view this Special Dispatch in HTML, visit: www.memri.org/bin/opener_latest.cgi?ID=SD119806 .

Dr. Bassam Tahhan, a Syrian-born French professor of Arabic literature, teaches at the prestigious Henri IV secondary school in Paris and is an expert on the Koran. In his numerous lectures and interviews, he advocates "Protestant Islam," which he defines as Islam that allows freedom of thought and permits questioning the Sunna, abrogating hadiths not grounded in the Koran, and reinterpreting the Koran in light of modern values. Tahhan recently attended a UNESCO conference on human rights in Morocco, where he gave the following interview to the independent French-language Moroccan daily Telquel:(1)


"To Be a Rationalist is to Acknowledge That the Orthodox Approach is Fundamentally Wrong"

Telquel: "You characterize yourself as one who interprets the Koran rationally. What do you mean by that?"

Tahhan: "To read the Koran rationally is to accept that the Koran is open [to interpretation] and has many meanings. The tradition regards the Koran as one-dimensional and fixed. This approach is not rationalist. To be a rationalist is to accept that each era, with its [particular] methods and discoveries, presents its own reading of the Koran, and this is the way it will be until the end of days. To be a rationalist is to acknowledge that the orthodox approach is fundamentally wrong since it does not accept the multiplicity of readings."

Telquel: "You are one of a handful of experts around the world on the different versions of the Koran. How did you come to have a passion for this topic?"

Tahhan: "Let me remind you of a historical fact that is accepted by all. In the year 901 - an unfortunate year for Muslims - a Muslim qadi named Ibn Mujahid canonized [one version of] the Koran. Before that, there were many different versions of the Koran, and this did not upset the good Muslims!"


Examining the Different Versions of the Koran Reveals "Its Wide Range of Possible Meanings"

Tahhan: "Today, Muslim thought evolves within a very rigid framework, namely the framework of the Shari'a. I, on the other hand, refer to the sacred scriptures. Specifically, I allow myself to draw upon the various [versions of the] 'sacred scriptures,' since there are many of them. This is a fact. In order to see this, one must merely read the chapter Kutub Al-Masahif ('The Books of the Koran') in Ibn Nadim's book Al-Fihrist. Ibn Nadim enumerates several versions of the Koran which were not recognized by the Caliphs. He explicitly refers to mushaf al-rasul (the Prophet's Koran)! Remember that, ever since the Koran was canonized, we have been referring to Mushaf 'Uthman ['Uthman's version of the Koran].

"The German orientalist Theodor Noeldeke wrote several volumes on the history of the various Korans. Today the Arabic translation of his book is being circulated in secret. Jews and Christians readily accept the different versions of their sacred scriptures. Why shouldn't we? When you examine the different versions from different perspectives - sociological, philosophical, juridical and linguistic - you reveal the Koran's wide range of possible meanings. This breathes new life into [the Koran], instead of petrifying it for all time!"


"Why Can't the Word of God Be Multifaceted? Why Can't the Koran Be True in Its Different Versions?"

Telquel: "You do understand, though, that it is difficult for believing [Muslims] to accept your arguments, [since they] believe that there is only one truth, which stems from a divine revelation and is recorded in one single book, namely the Koran."

Tahhan: "I allow myself to search for the historical truth. I believe that it is my right and duty to check the sources. Who decreed that the Koran is monolithic because the word of God is one? Why can't the word of God be multifaceted? Why can't the Koran be true in its different versions? God never deprived man of his freedom of thought. God created history, and allows it to unfold. But he never deprived human beings of the right to manage their own affairs in the course of history. Arab and Muslim history - the history which bores our children in school - is a history of palaces; it is not a social history. When our elite [finally] examines the social history of Islam, no one will find it strange that researchers are excited about examining the various versions of the Koran!"


"As a Protestant Muslim, I... Challenge the Over-Application of the Shari'a"

Telquel: "You find it unfortunate that Islam is limited to the Shari'a. Must we become 'Protestant Muslims' in order to set the Shari'a aside?"

Tahhan: "As a Protestant Muslim, I do not merely challenge the over-application of the Shari'a. I believe that basing Islam [only] on the Five Pillars is a narrow approach. I say that Islam has many dimensions: the judicial dimension which deals with ethics, the theological dimension that has to do with philosophy, and the mystical dimension which has to do with socio-psychology and spirituality. I wish that the training of theologians in Muslim countries would consider all these various dimensions. When you limit religious teaching to the Shari'a, you impoverish it. That is why I completely support the pioneering reforms of [Moroccan] Minister Ahmad Tawfiq, including the modern reforms implemented by [the Moroccan institute of] Dar Al-Hadith Al-Hassania..."


"We Should Found a New Community... of Protestant Muslims"

Telquel: "For many, 'Islam' and 'Protestant' [are concepts that] do not go together. How do you reconcile them?"

Tahhan: "We should found a new community: the community of Protestant Muslims. Its roots already exist in [Muslim] history. This community would promote a return to the word of God, since the overwhelming majority of prophetic hadiths are subject to serious questioning and suspicion. A Protestant Muslim has only one goal: to track down the truth to its very source. He has only one guiding principle: never to let himself be content with the so-called revealed truth. Freedom of thought is a God-given gift that should be honored by Muslims."


Why Should One Religious School Be Better Than Another?

Telquel: "You often object to the dictates of the religious schools regarding religious practices. Why is that a problem?"

Tahhan: "Why should one [religious] school be better than another? For example: Abu Hanifa accepts the testimony of a Muslim woman, whereas the other schools reject it along with the testimonies of Jews and Christians - and thus treat the Muslim woman as an apostate! Why should [we believe that] Malik is right and not Abu Hanifa? Why should I be considered a less devout Muslim if I follow the directives of Al-Tabari (a brilliant exegete who was murdered by obscurantists) rather than those of [Ibn] Hanbal? God granted me freedom of thought and I intend to make use of it!"


"Al-Shafi'i is Dangerous Because" He Gives the Same Status to the Sunna and to the Koran

Telquel: "You say that [Imam] Al-Shafi'i is dangerous because he replaced the Koran with the Sunna. What do you mean by that?"

Tahhan: "There was always a tendency to supplement the Koran with the Sunna. This tendency is questionable since the Koran is defined as the Sunna of God and his Prophet! Various historical factors gradually led the Sunna to become an indispensable supplement to the Koran, to the point that it superseded the Koran. Remember that the Koran never mentions [the practice of] stoning, but [only] whipping. Likewise, the Koran does not explicitly [mandate] the death penalty for apostates (la ikraha fi din). The Koran doesn't totally prohibit [the drinking of] wine... Al-Shafi'i is dangerous because, in his book 'Rissala,' he explains that the Koran and the Sunna can be given the same status. Al-Shafi'i is dangerous because he created a certain ambiguity: he turned the fundamental text [of Islam] into a twofold text [consisting of the Koran and the Sunna], to the point where the Sunna came to impinge on the word of God. Unfortunately, [even] in the 21st century, the orthodox world still fail

"We should also have the right to [apply] a diversified reading of the Koran in religious ruling. The [status of the] Sunna must be redefined. Why should those who believe only in the Koran be expelled from the Sunni community?"

Telquel: "You say that Islam did not abolish slavery. This is not what we were taught in school..."

Tahhan: "Many suras deal with slaves, for example with abid [slaves] and ma malakat aymanukum ['those whom you own'], which clearly refers to women captured in war. Islam is against slavery, but no sura explicitly forbids it. This shows that it is necessary to come up with a new historical and sociological reading of the scriptures. And since you offer me the opportunity to do so, let me call upon the [religious] authorities. Our orthodox religious scholars take the liberty of abrogating the sacred text, so why don't they go all the way and abrogate everything that infringes on the universal rights of Muslim women? The problem is that the religious scholars have only one guiding principle - the domination of women by men, to the extent that they made laws that undermine the [one] positive

granted to Muslim women, namely financial independence... The [notion that] women are naqisat 'aql wa din ['deficient in both intellect and faith'] is an outdated theological fabrication whi

Telquel: "Aren't you being over-optimistic when you say that Morocco holds the seeds of Islamic renewal, including a reform in the status of women?"

Tahhan: "I honestly believe that it is no coincidence that Mohammad VI was the one who ratified the new mudawana [the new Moroccan family code that grants more rights to women]. He is a descendent of [the Prophet Muhammad's daughter] Fatima, who was dispossessed by the followers of Abbas. They are the ones who decreed that women cannot inherit, and thus deprived her descendants of the right to the caliphate... And it was Fatima's descendant... who restored the Muslim women's rights. In this I see the seeds of Protestant Islam - which are potent enough to shake the dust off [Islam] after 13 centuries of stagnation!"

Endnotes:
(1) Telquel (Morocco), Issue 229, June, 2006.

There may be something about the Muslim personality which I don't understand, however I see at least one hole in this article that you could drive a truck through.
What is the hole?
The author of the article wants to make a new Koran interpretation so that Muslims could live with the rest of the world in peace. It will be, I think, his interpretation of the Koran that he will use. This is where the title "Protestant Islam" comes from.
My question is, what is to stop another Muslim from doing the same thing and interpreting the Koran as he sees fit, And then another and another and another? Every individual will have their own interpretation. Some will have a violent interpretation and some will have a more peaceful interpretation.
This will solve nothing because there will be no authority that says "I know how it should be interpreted".

Cataracts

[tits]

does not understand true faith and belief. We believe that the whole world needs to have our milk-toast philosophy of I'm ok your ok. Heck, look at our discussions on the faith board. I could react to your perspective as stiff-necked as you, but nothing you have said will alter my faith and visa-versa. We few of faith have been vilified by the Left for years. Read many of the posts on THC and it appears that Christianity is the bane of mankind. What most of the non-religious people do not understand is that they actually have their own religion of "self." They believe in their right to espouse "self" over our right to espouse God or Jesus. What is agnosticism or atheism but the belief that self is the supreme existence.

I got tired of the nonsense of the agnostic/atheistic claim "more people have been killed in the name of God than all the wars combined." I did a quick search on the net and found that in the 19th and 20th centuries, nearly 400,000,000 people were killed in the name of patriotism. I broke it down into individual wars with totals. Several of the THC hardliners countered with: "Hitler was a Christian", "Napoleon was a Catholic", etc..

In psychiatric medicine we have terms for such strong defense mechanism and reluctance to see another world view. ;D

[cataracts]

tits said:

does not understand true faith and belief. We believe that the whole world needs to have our milk-toast philosophy of I'm ok your ok. Heck, look at our discussions on the faith board. I could react to your perspective as stiff-necked as you, but nothing you have said will alter my faith and visa-versa. We few of faith have been vilified by the Left for years. Read many of the posts on THC and it appears that Christianity is the bane of mankind. What most of the non-religious people do not understand is that they actually have their own religion of "self." They believe in their right to espouse "self" over our right to espouse God or Jesus. What is agnosticism or atheism but the belief that self is the supreme existence.

I got tired of the nonsense of the agnostic/atheistic claim "more people have been killed in the name of God than all the wars combined." I did a quick search on the net and found that in the 19th and 20th centuries, nearly 400,000,000 people were killed in the name of patriotism. I broke it down into individual wars with totals. Several of the THC hardliners countered with: "Hitler was a Christian", "Napoleon was a Catholic", etc..

In psychiatric medicine we have terms for such strong defense mechanism and reluctance to see another world view. ;D

It's nice to agree with you Tittus, even if my neck is stiff. I agree with you wholeheartedly.

Now just because you did give me an opening, let me pass this one by you and see what you think.

You said that I cannot alter your faith and that you cannot alter my faith. What you said is true. What this boils down to is not so much what you or I have read. It's not so much what you or I have been told. What it really boils down to is that I have 'willed' myself to believe in the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. You have 'willed' yourself into believing whatever it is that you believe.
Faith is always an act of the 'will'. We have freewill and we use it to form our faith.

We must also have understanding and knowledge of our faith, but it is always the 'will' which makes the faith.

One of the things that the Catholic Church does (used to do) is to teach their children the Faith. To understand it and know it. Then when that child grows into adulthood he exercises his reason and comprehension and proves that what he was taught as a child is indeed true. Then he can prove his faith is true. There is no part of any Catholic dogma that cannot be proven as true.

Cataracts
ps I should probably have kept this as a seperate post, but you did give me such a nice opening.

[tits]

cataracts said:

tits said:

One of the things that the Catholic Church does (used to do) is to teach their children the Faith. To understand it and know it. Then when that child grows into adulthood he exercises his reason and comprehension and proves that what he was taught as a child is indeed true. Then he can prove his faith is true. There is no part of any Catholic dogma that cannot be pr oven as true.

I was raised with the mantra of "once a Catholic, always a Catholic" in the background. However, that is true for us Lutherans (ex in my case) too. The difference between us and the rest of the West is that we were taught our religious history. The public school has removed almost all reference of religion from our history books.

I wonder, how the parochial schools differ today from our youth. I include the Pentecostal as well as those few Lutheran and Catholic programs that remain. It seems that the last 20 years has seen program after program cut funds to those school districts and programs who clung to the teaching of our religious heritage. If a school district wishes to maintain it's ties to federal and state education monies, they must exclude the teaching of our religious heritage from their text books. For those of us who home schooled or are home schooling, the subject takes on extra meaning as it has become the primary accusation against the quality of education. Yet, nearly every Federal and private education survey finds both the home-schooler and the parochial schooled child scoring higher in all subject matters on standardized tests. They also score higher on personality tests. Could this be due to the strict discipline and the rote teaching of fundamental doctrines?

I look at the excellent Arnold Friberg painting of Washington kneeling at prayer in Valley Forge and review many of the early writings and find a strong religion even among those self-espoused agnostic such as Franklin or Deist like Jefferson.

In writing God out of our history, have we written God out of our future history. As Lincoln exclaimed in 1858: I believe the Bible is the best gift God has ever given to man. All the good from the Savior of the world is communicated to us through this Book. - Abraham Lincoln


"I do not think I could myself, be brought to support a man for office, whom I knew to be an open enemy of, and scoffer at, religion." Abraham Lincoln 1846

[cataracts]

Honest Abe was a good Protestant.

[MrDoublel]

To touch on the initial topic. One of the biggest problems with islam is the fear of offending allah. There is no personal relationship with allah, he is distant and vengefull. He is not forgiving. These beliefs are diametrically opposed to Christianity. Additionally, there is the tendancy to ensure you APPEAR to be a good muslim to your fellow muslims. The last thing you want is to look like you are not conforming to whatever the immam said during friday services. Their entire belief system is based on a twisted version of "honor" and that underlying, constant fear. The average muslim has no idea where he stands with allah. "What if I die today? Will I see paradise?" This is one reason they seem so willing to blow themselves up, instant first class ticket to paradise guaranteed! Ask your average christian where he/she is going upon their death and what answer do you get?

This is just the tip of the iceberg as to why there has been no reformation in islam. "I know what I feel in my heart but I don't want anyone else to know!" That could be an instant showstopper for sure and guarenteed exclusion from paradise and all those earthly pleasures. (another questionable concept. your version of heaven is full of earthly pleasure? Really sad in my book.)

If the moderates of islam do finally decide to rise up it will be a long and ugly war. One that could drag quite a few non muslim nations into and down with it.

[tits]

A related and unrelated question. The Quran teaches that it was Ishmael and not Isaac that Abraham almost sacrificed. Where did the revision of the Torah occur?