Rev. Erudite Redneck, B.S., B.S., M.A., M.Div.

Statements of common ground are prudent and reasonable exercises.

Having read the original "Muslim" statement and the final joint statement, I have to say I agree that Christian leadership of the fundamental, orthodox, or liberal variety should not sign it.

For the Christian side of the equation to apologize for the Crusades maybe apropos, but I see no apology for the Arab-Muslim conquest of Christian Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia, and all of Christian North Africa and into Spain and the Balkans. The millions of Christian deaths at the hands of the Arab conquest go unmentioned. In addition the millions of Africans enslaved and sold under the Muslim tradition are not mentioned either.

Secondly, the code words and jargon of Islam pervade the document to such an extent that it is a document of capitulation rather than a document of compromise and understanding.

The initial concept of a parallel statement of common faith is well meant. But truthfully, all non-orthodox Christians can not make such a statement. For those who do believe that there are many paths to God and that the Logos and Wisdom of God are not a single historical event, this statement is not viable. The statements of similarity and of like type beliefs are simply not true.

And as strange as it may seem, the document in its own perverted way does justify violent action against non-signing Christians in the minds of the Muslim radical community.
 

It's a start.

"Without peace and justice between these two religious communities, there can be no meaningful peace in the world. The future of the world depends on peace between Muslims and Christians."

That alone makes the effort worthwhile.


Where is the apology for the Crusades? I didn't see that. What differences does it make that there's no apology for Muslim conquests?
 

Well, why would FotF have anything useful to say about this topic, when they're always so wrong about everything else? You know, even a stopped clock is right twice a day ... I keep waiting for them to be right about something, someday. ;)

If we're very, very lucky we're at the turning point when these groups will start to disappear.
 

DrLobo, I think I disagree with you on the alleged apology imbalance.

The Crusades were led by states acting as, or at the behest of, the Church, to conquer to convert.

The Muslims conquests were led by peoples out for the good old-fashioned spoils of conquest: territory, booty and tribute. They were not acting as, or for, the Muslim faith; they happened to be Muslim. And they didn't force conversion as a matter of course.

At least that's my take on the differences.

Plus, I didn't see this effort, or these documents, as political documents at all (other than in the sense that "everything is political"). I saw them as acts, and documents, of certain leading thinkrs of the major faith traditions trying to start to create an environment where political actors might find it easier to communicate and interact without wanting kill one another right off the bat.
 

ER said:
"The Muslims conquests were led by peoples out for the good old-fashioned spoils of conquest: territory, booty and tribute. They were not acting as, or for, the Muslim faith; they happened to be Muslim."

Is this a joke? That really is PC shit. You can say the very same thing about the Crusade if you wanted to submerge their Religious nature. Of course these guys were out for booty, under the flag of Islam.

"And they didn't force conversion as a matter of course."

You might be right on a technicality but not by much.
Wow, forced conversion was the norm in any of imperial MonoGod Religions, Jewish, Christian, and Islam.

I suppose that the near death of Zoroastrianism as a religion in Persia had nothing to do with Muslim persecutions and forced conversions?

Here is a balance version of what went on. Notice what it says about the "idolaters".
CONVERT OR DIE
The Quran teaches that people should not be converted by force: “Let there be no compulsion in religion” (2:256a).

Nonetheless, the doctrine of jihad has led many to allege that Islam was spread by the sword. This is a fair charge, but it needs to be qualified.

Muslims follow not only the Quran, which they believe is a literal transcript of God’s words, but also the Hadith, accounts of Muhammad’s words and deeds. These words and deeds are considered inspired by God and an example for Muslims to follow. According to one widely accepted hadith, whenever Muhammad would send an out expedition, he would admonish his appointed commander:

When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to [accept] Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. ... If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah’s help and fight them.[12]

The jizya, a kind of tribute, was part of a larger deal in which non-Muslims submitted to several conditions. In addition to paying the jizya, non-Muslims were also required to wear distinctive clothing and mark their houses (which must not be built higher than Muslims’ houses), must not scandalize Muslims by openly performing their worship services, nor build new churches or synagogues. Those who owned land were also required to pay a land tax.[13]

According to some Muslim jurists, the jizya had to be paid by each person at a humiliating public ceremony, in which the person was struck on the head or the nape of the neck. According to historian Bat Ye’or, this ceremony “survived unchanged till the dawn of the twentieth century.”[14]

Both the jizya and the land tax were often extorted through torture, and were frequently so exorbitant that whole villages would flee or go into hiding.

Technically, then, Christians and Jews were not forced to accept Islam at the point of a sword. But their treatment nonetheless placed them under severe pressure to convert.

And many idolaters were not even allowed to pay the jizya. They were forced to either convert or die.
http://www.answering-islam.org/Terrorism/by_the_sword.html
 

Re, "Is this a joke? That really is PC shit."

Calm down. Take a pill. It's based on my reading of the history of the Ottoman Empire. If I'm remembering it wrong, or if I misunderstood it in the first place, fine.

But being PC is the last damn thing on my mind -- EVER.
 

"Can't we all just get along?"
 

Well, am I misunderstanding history? Or misremembering it? I don't know.

And is this a political document?
 

Hi ER.

I think you are mis-remembering. In fact, as I understand it, the Crusades were not just a bunch of Christians with nothing better to do, but were in fact requested by the people being messed with by Islamic Arabs. What happened later, of course, is a different story. And I don't think they were forcing conversions as much as simply killing non-Christians.

As to the post, I see no problem with those people withdrawing from the document. They should have studied it better before signing in the first place. I understand your point about taking any chance to work for peace, but you can't do it on crappy terms. Personally, I thought the original Muslim statement was a load. Speaking in general terms, Christians don't have a problem with other religions existing, even knowing they're false. Thus, the onus should be on the Muslims to change their ways as far as participating, supporting or ignoring Islamic terror. The real issue is between the terrorists, and those who are supposed to be moderates and opposed to the violent activity. Once they clean that up, there's no issue between us and them.
 

Re, "the Crusades were not just a bunch of Christians with nothing better to do ..."

Hey, MA.

Never said that. I said the Crusades were deliberate acts of state churches, or church states (tomayto-tomahto).


Re, "Christians don't have a problem with other religions existing ..."

MA, you are a particular tolerant brand of conservative Christian. Most, in my experience, are not.
 

I think the problem is you are not understanding what they're trying to say, or those you have in mind articulate their positions poorly. They may believe strongly that their way is THE way, but not necessarily feel others must be beaten, hounded, or in any way forced to submit to their particular brand of Chrstianity. Except for Fred Phelps.
 

I think the problem is you apparently have no personal experience with actual fundamentalists.