When Civilizations Meet: How Joseph Ratzinger Sees Islam

CHIESA ^ | May 26,2006 | Samir Khalil Samir, S.J.

[Dqban22]

Hussein bin Mahmoud invokes Qur’an 47:4: “When you meet the unbelievers, strike the necks…” It would be refreshing if Barack Obama or the Archbishop of Brisbane or one of the many other non-Muslim authorities who have insisted that the Islamic State has nothing to do with Islam would explain how he is misunderstanding that verse. But it is doubtful that they even know that such a verse exists in the Qur’an. “Jihadi Cleric Justifies IS Beheadings: ‘Islam Is A Religion Of Beheading,’” MEMRI, August 26, 2014 (thanks to Pamela Geller): In a recent article, jihadi cleric Hussein bin Mahmoud, a prominent writer on jihadi forums, expressed support for the beheading of American journalist James Foley by a member of the Islamic State (IS). Bin Mahmoud wrote that beheading was an effective way to terrorize the enemies of Islam, and stressed that, under Islamic law, Foley was a harbi, i.e. a non-Muslim whose life was not protected by an agreement of protection. He argued further that Islam allows and encourages such acts, since it is a religion of war and fighting.

[dontreadthis]

The Plain Truth About Islam By Peter Salemi
http://www.british-israel.ca/Islam.htm#.VLcscNLF-So

[sagar]

Islam is not the problem. If nobody follows it, the unholy koran is not going to kill anyone.

There problem is the follower of Islam. Muslims that are willing to behead and subjugate you in the name of their religion are the problem.

[Gumdrop]

The date of this article puts it about 6 months after Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger became Pope Benedict XVI.

[Arthur McGowan]

Bergoglio was so angry after the Regensburg speech that he cancelled a visit to Rome. He also criticized Ratzinger savagely.

It is obvious that whatever the Left dictates, Bergoglio is on board. Islam good. Global Warming real. Etc.

[Arthur McGowan]

It is notable how many there are in FR who hold to an Islamic view of Christianity:

God dictated a book, which is not subject to interpretation.

There is to be no development, no deepening, no enrichment of anything found in the basic book. The book is absolutely final. It contains all truth. There is nothing outside the book.

Salvation comes through the repetition of a verbal formula.

[shibumi]

"He has understood that a Muslim is not offended by the crucifix, by religious symbols: this is actually a laicist polemic that strives to eliminate the religious from society. Muslims are not offended by religious symbols, but by secularized culture, by the fact that God and the values that they associate with God are absent from this civilization."

Bullhockey.

Moslems are perpetually and proufoundly offended by everything that is not *them*.

If it were not so, then why, praytell, do they insist on the total destruction of houses of worship and the forbidding of any Christian (or Jewish) symbols in lands where they live?

Try telling this little fairytale to the Christians who were butchered for living their very non-secular faith in the lands now controlled by ISIS.

Try and find an extant Christian symbol there - anywhere.

[GladesGuru]

“It is notable how many there are in FR who hold to an Islamic view of Christianity:”

FReepers believe Christians practice female genital mutilation, behead those who disagree with them - - -
have the Mods been told about this?

[Mr. Dough]

Wait - "civilizations??? I only saw one mentioned.

[bramps]

Check the pill box. Pretty sure you missed Saturday.

[Arthur McGowan]

So very clever.

[PieterCasparzen]

It is notable how many there are in FR who hold to an Islamic view of Christianity:

This would be that Christianity is a lie. Is this for exaggeration to make a point, I presume ?

God dictated a book, which is not subject to interpretation.

Yes, the Bible is God's Word, so you could say God "dictated" it. Of course it is subject to interpretation, and of course, in each instance, our understanding or "interpretation" is either true or not true. We can't ever be perfect in anything, but we can continue to seek the truth, to keep seeking corrections of our errors. We certainly can benefit from the knowledge of others, i.e., we can "stand on the shoulders" of 2,000 years of intepretation. But ultimately, the only opinion that really matters is God's, and everyone has a Biblical responsibility to seek the truth of God's Word.

There is to be no development, no deepening, no enrichment of anything found in the basic book. The book is absolutely final. It contains all truth. There is nothing outside the book.

One must take great care in coming up with "new interpretations" - it's a great temptation and a very easy way to develop a wrong interpretation. Aspiring theologians would certainly be attracted to the idea that they came up with something that will put their name in the history books. Is the Bible final ? Yes, it's quite clear on that. It contains all truth ? The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.

There are many "things" (writings) outside the Bible, but they are simply the writings of fallen men, authors who are prone to error. Is there truth in uninspired writings ? Certainly at times there is. But we must take care to recognize the difference between the God-breathed Scripture and all other writings in how certain we are of their respective truthfulness - and be sure to defer to Scripture in matters of faith and how we conduct ourselves from a moral standpoint.

Salvation comes through the repetition of a verbal formula.

No, the Bible clearly says that salvation comes by Grace through faith.

[campaignPete R-CT]

who said that “we should fear fideism (fundamentalism) as much as we fear rationalism”?

[TheMole]

I am not a Catholic but the learning and intelligence of Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict seriously impressed me.

Can't say the same for the latest Pope.

[RedHeeler]

They have necks. Perhaps, shorter than the greed of mohamet. Let us pursue, the physical test of greed by the islam neck. If your allah is correct, then test your incorrupt nature. Let us kill all of you, as martyrs. Any volunteers, of any caste/degreed or poor? How about you Ye-uy? Got anything to offer up, to your miserable moon god?

[RedHeeler]

Hey, had to let you in on this post... “They have necks. Perhaps, shorter than the greed of mohamet. Let us pursue, the physical test of greed by the islam neck. If your allah is correct, then test your incorrupt nature. Let us see all of you, as martyrs. Any volunteers, of any caste/degreed or poor? How about you Ye-uy? Got anything to offer up, to your miserable moon god? Why do your prophets have no healing miracles? Not even the faceless one, drew upon healing, when talking with the jinn, for 27 years. These people are the scum, of lower humanity. Rejoice, freedom is soon.

[Talisker]

Depends on how you define “religion.”

Western civilization generally, and the 1st Amendment specifically, protects religion so that people may explore their personal relationship with God in peace.

So allowing that personal exploration to include aggression, harm and murder towards people who think differently about the subject does not exactly support the reasoning behind the legal protection.

Especially when that alternate view of the subject also includes replacing that legal protection of religion with another law that mandates totalitarian murder for deviating from a single way of belief.

Therefore, all things considered, I would say that Islam does not meet the requirements of a 1st Amendment religion. Instead, I would call it a political movement antagonistic to the fundamental values of the American Constitution, that is innately, fundamentally and forever at war with it - by definition.

[defconw]

Watching to see how many will prove your point.

[WriteOn]

Wrong. Scripture is not self-interpreting and thus relies on authority outside itself. The argument that scripture alone is sufficient is Islamic.

[Oratam]

A few years ago, someone else (vladimir998 maybe) made a similar point—which I agree with. It made me think that perhaps a few Crusaders returned from the Middle East with more than just some novel ideas about pointed arches.