The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Finding common ground between Muslims and Christians > Comments

Finding common ground between Muslims and Christians : Comments

By David Palmer, published 3/3/2008

The coalescence of religion and political ideology in Islam helps explain why true freedom of religion remains so foreign to it.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 13
  9. 14
  10. 15
  11. All
senate vote?
australians check www.un.org
use information at united nations to help work a better role for us in most of the forum questions
Posted by senatevote, Monday, 3 March 2008 1:13:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A dialogue is better than war and it's a bit like Catholic-Protestant dialogue or Christian-Marxist dialogue in the last century. The extremists on both sides might call for total conversion to their point of view but the rest of us look for common ground. In that light I would not refer to Bernard Lewis, a guru for George Bush and proponent of a Clash of Civilisations. He's only "renowned" in certain circles not really interested in dialogue.

There are theocrats in Christianity as well as Islam (and Judaism) but fortunately not a majority. Calvin's Geneva is the model for many of them.

A dialogue is important to counter some of the hate being spewed out on both sides, like some of the stuff put out recently by the so-called Christian Democratic Party in NSW or the line put out by the Catch the Fires ministry in Victoria.

There are some voices of moderate Islam calling for dialogue in Australia as well as India (Asgar Ali Engineer), Malaysia (Chandra Muzaffar)), Europe (Tariq Ramadan), and so on.
Responding to their call is an important way forward.
Posted by Pedr Fardd, Monday, 3 March 2008 1:20:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why is it that so many people, especially the zealots of the Western socialist Left, refuse to take orthodox Muslims and Jihadists at their own word? When a large group of very fanatical people repeatedly say that they will do everything in their power to sabotage and undermine the economies of western nations . . . when they openly declare their intent to increase the Muslim population in western nations, through a higher birthrate and the West's own foolishly generous immigration policies . . . when Islamists use intimidation to enforce Sharia law even in the concentrated Muslim communities of western Europe -- in defiance of the laws of their host countries . . . when radical Muslim activists, like Mr. Choudury in England, declare that democratic government is "evil", and that Muslims will subject the west to Islamic rule even if it takes 200 years . . . . is it not reasonable to take them seriously? Do we think they are joking? Do we think their bravado is just hyperbole?
It is becoming increasingly tedious to listen to the whining of Muslims as they complain about alleged western "imperialism". Very seldom is their own interpretation of imperialism actually defined with any specificity. I cannot count the number of times I have heard some Muslims refer to even a simple western TRADE presence in the Middle East as an act of imperialism.
Posted by sonofeire, Monday, 3 March 2008 1:23:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Let's use a bit of simple logic.. for those calling for a 'fair' dialogue and those wishing not to force or proselytise the religion of one on to another.

In a dialogue among 'believers', it is fundamental to say what is good for one is good for the other -
that presumes an equality of religions, and that one can admit the legitimacy of the other. This is the element missing from the proposed debate.

First problem - No common term of reference : Muslims are generally unable to accept that one can discuss the Koran in depth through using any form of 'higher' literary critisism, because they say it was written by dictation from God. With such an absolute interpretation, it is difficult to discuss the contents of faith (as with the 138 Muslim scholars).

Second problem - gross hypocrisy: This was the invitation made by the Muslim scholars: "We as Muslims invite Christians to come together with us on the basis of what is common to us, which is also what is most essential to our faith and practice: the Two Commandments of love.” The “Two Commandments of love” were nowhere in evidence Aug 2007, when an Egyptian convert from Islam to Christianity was sentenced to death by Islamic clerics. This is currently not just an isolated incident within the Muslim world.

In today's Islam, ideas are available, especially among reformists and young intellectuals, but they are keeping quiet because freedom in the Islamic world is highly limited.
 
By refusing the so called 'olive branch', the Pope was courageous enough to identify the key points: reason, violence, hermeneutics and so not enter a meaningless debate - as required by a sensationalist media. He touched on a sore point with the question of the interpretation of the Koran, without which there can be no dialogue.

Try refuting facts perhaps - but the vehicle of narrow literalism, devoid of interpretation should not be entertained by any 'enlightened' mind. An inability to objectively critique your own 'order' makes even less objective any criticism as given to others.
Posted by relda, Monday, 3 March 2008 2:21:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
From "Pericles" :

It is deceitful to put a 'right to proselytise' in the same basket. It would be far more fruitful to use the occasion to agree on a ban on such activities".

I doubt if I have ever read a more infantile statement.

So, "Pericles" wants to BAN proselytizing! Astounding! Where exactly does a ban on peacefully proselytizing one's own faith fit in with the principles of freedom of religious association and freedom of individual worship? A ban would certainly not sit well with the countless numbers of Muslims and radical clerics who have assumed a "right" to immigrate to the democratic nations of the West . . . and there to build thousands of mosques and madrassahs -- paid for by Muslim governments -- where a significant portion of those same clerics preach hatred against the very western societies which have given them refuge. Where indeed is the reciprocity? When will the missionaries of Catholicism, Pentacostalism, Quakers, Jehovah's Witnesses, Sikhs, Buddhists, Hindus, Taoists, Scientology, Nose-Pickers Anonymous and UFO worshippers be able to freely preach in Saudi Arabia? If Muslims really believe they possess the one and only "TRUTH", why should they be afraid of having those beliefs challenged in open debate in their own home countries?

If one really believes in religious freedom, putting a ban on peaceful proselytising is just as hypocritical as a ban on "blasphemy", and just as stupid and dangerous as governments giving financial support to ANY religious institution. All true-believing "fundamentalist" Muslims -- Sunni or Shia -- are taught to interpret the Quran LITERALLY. Such an interpretation is inherently a political, as well as religious, ideology. This strain of Islam has always been blatantly imperialist in its INTENT . . . from the very origin of Islamic power. It is a waste of time to argue about how many "moderate" Muslims there are, because it is not the moderates who are setting the agenda for world-wide Islamic expansion. The future belongs to the fecund and the resolute, and unfortunately, it is currently NOT the non-Muslim West which is either
Posted by sonofeire, Monday, 3 March 2008 3:32:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
relda, you are attempting to drive the argument in a direction that it does not need to go.

>>In a dialogue among 'believers', it is fundamental to say what is good for one is good for the other - that presumes an equality of religions, and that one can admit the legitimacy of the other. This is the element missing from the proposed debate.<<

In logic, if not in "belief", it is possible to admit that all religions are not equal - without the necessity for a debate on which is greater or lesser - and simply get on with the task at hand. Which is not, whatever you might imagine, the annihilation of one and the victory of the other, simply acceptance that it is necessary to live side-by-side.

It's a fact that there are people in this world whose views differ from mine on all sorts of fundamental topics - sexuality, capital punishment, abortion, Collingwood - and yet we still find a way to muddle through without killing each other.

>>First problem - No common term of reference : Muslims are generally unable to accept that one can discuss the Koran in depth through using any form of 'higher' literary critisism<<

They are not alone. Try suggesting to Boaz that the Bible isn't infallible.

However, "higher literary criticism" - whatever that means - is not the issue here. Preventing bloodshed is.

>>the Pope was courageous enough to identify the key points: reason, violence, hermeneutics and so not enter a meaningless debate... He touched on a sore point with the question of the interpretation of the Koran, without which there can be no dialogue.<<

It appears to me that this is where the process breaks down.

Instead of talking about living side by side in peace, all the Pope wants to do is discuss religion.

That's exactly what caused the problem in the first place.

Once again, I strongly suggest that you read the document in question, and come back with some objections based on its actual content, as opposed to the content you think it might have.

http://www.acommonword.com/index.php?lang=en&page=option1
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 3 March 2008 3:54:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 13
  9. 14
  10. 15
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy