1. Comment #78063 by Quine on October 11, 2007 at 5:35 pm

Perhaps we should write to these 138 and ask them not to kill those who leave the faith.

Other Comments by Quine

2. Comment #78065 by PrimeNumbers on October 11, 2007 at 5:41 pm

These Muslim leaders have a nerve, eh? Muslim peace is the peace of the sword in the back of the infidel or unbeliever (or Christian for that matter). They've proven it time and again, they're not fit to be in modern society. You give them an inch of tolerance and they take a mile of special dispensations for their religious needs.

Other Comments by PrimeNumbers

3. Comment #78068 by Theocrapcy on October 11, 2007 at 5:50 pm

This is all good and well, but the problem is more a clash of civilisations rather than religion. Xianity is only slightly more modernised than Islam, but both need to drag their knuckles out of the iron age and face the fact that faith is the problem, not the solution.

Other Comments by Theocrapcy

4. Comment #78071 by Goldy on October 11, 2007 at 6:01 pm

Odd really, seeing as the people themselves can co-habit quite contentedly without advice from their leaders and spiritual guides...probably the same ones sending letter to each other...

Other Comments by Goldy

5. Comment #78074 by BAEOZ on October 11, 2007 at 6:19 pm

Did I just see four horsemen riding by?
There'll be some fundy chrisitians who love this letter.....Sad

Other Comments by BAEOZ

6. Comment #78077 by PeterK on October 11, 2007 at 6:29 pm

Now send them all a copy of the 'The God Delusion' and 'God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything'

Other Comments by PeterK

7. Comment #78078 by Cartomancer on October 11, 2007 at 6:29 pm

Yes, a wonderful idea. Why don't the Christians and Muslims all get together and focus on their similarities rather than their differences. Then they can put up a united front against the rest of us instead...

Seriously though, I don't know why nobody has thought of this before. I mean, if we had known eight hundred years ago that just writing a letter asking everyone to play nice and get along was the answer then we could have avoided that whole nasty crusades thing and everything that went with it. Maybe we can write to the North Koreans to stop oppressing their people and trying to acquire nuclear weapons too? Then we'll send a letter to the Indians and Pakistanis asking them to forget all that nasty Kashmir nonsense. Why not write to Fred Phelps and the homophobes of middle america asking that we all get along? How about sending out a raft of letters to big multinational companies asking them nicely to stop polluting the atmosphere and exploiting workers in third world countries? Maybe we could post a missal to all the career criminals in prisons asking them to stop committing crimes and do something productive with their lives?

Now where did I put all my stamps...?

Other Comments by Cartomancer

8. Comment #78080 by mmurray on October 11, 2007 at 6:34 pm

So now I am confused. I thought we kept getting told religion doesn't cause wars ....

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

9. Comment #78081 by Prieten on October 11, 2007 at 6:38 pm

I hate to be alarmist, but I think we all know that it is just a matter of time before Al Qaeda gets its hands on a nuclear weapon and uses it. This letter almost sounds more like a threat, than a real quest for peace.

Other Comments by Prieten

10. Comment #78083 by kraut on October 11, 2007 at 6:43 pm

I have made a small effort to read through some of the quran. Like a red threat intolerance to "unbelievers" winds thorugh this book. Unbelievers cannot be friends, cannot be trusted, can be lied to, can be cheated, treaties can be broken.

If part of that is true for the christian bible and new testament, it is to a far greater extend so in the "unholy" muslim book.
The god of allah reigns with utter violencene, threatening unbelievers and apostates at every turn with hellfire, condemnation and death by allah or the believers.

No wonder the adherents to such a religion are deeply indoctrinated with violence a modus operandi in the dealing with non believers.
Forgiveness - a ready topic in christianity - is not even considered towards an enemy. I find it a vulgar, insensitive and bloody religion.

Muslim is imo a far greater threat - and a real one - to secularism and democracy than any other of the world religions, and looking at the doctrinal content a peaceful coexistence with muslimism is not possible - the defeat and destruction of anything "unbelieve" is a declared goal in this book.

Other Comments by kraut

11. Comment #78095 by Fanusi Khiyal on October 11, 2007 at 7:28 pm

The nerve of these people. Memo to Islam: First of all stop waging total and bloody war on everything and everyone you come into contact with.

This is hogwash. Or more specifically, it is _hudna_. That's an islamic term, and it means asking for a truce until you are strong enough to wage war on the Infidel.

I don't like Christianity much, but in this case I hope the Christians are smart enough to ignore such nonsense.

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

12. Comment #78096 by Steve Wrathall on October 11, 2007 at 7:35 pm

"to come together with us on the common essentials of our two religions" ???
OK how about for starters, muslims adopt the following "common essentials" shared by almost all the rest of humanity (not just christos):
- complete freedom to leave your religion (incl islam)
- freedom to proselytise towards, away from, upwards or sideways WRT any belief system.
- complete equality of human rights incl infidels in majority moslem countries.
- unequivocal renunciation of terrorism, jihad, dhimmitude, and division of the world into dar al islam and dar al harb
- equality b/w male and female

Come back to us when you've sorted that, eh.

Other Comments by Steve Wrathall

13. Comment #78098 by DarwinsPitbull on October 11, 2007 at 8:06 pm

This is a great fantasy, but by no means will it ever become a reality. You would have to eliminate all the fanatics first before this even comes close to becoming a reality. And as long as there is religion, there will always be fanatics.

Other Comments by DarwinsPitbull

14. Comment #78099 by Dower on October 11, 2007 at 8:27 pm

"Finding common ground between Muslims and Christians ..."

There is no common ground. Islamism and Christianity are mutually exclusive.

Other Comments by Dower

15. Comment #78100 by Ian on October 11, 2007 at 8:38 pm

"I have in my hand, a piece of paper"

"Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it."

Other Comments by Ian

16. Comment #78102 by Barbara on October 11, 2007 at 9:13 pm

Prominent Muslim scholars are warning that the "survival of the world" is at stake if Muslims and Christians do not make peace with each other.

Like they used to say in the old west, 'Them sounds like fightin' words to me.'

In an unprecedented open letter signed by 138 leading Muslim scholars from every sect of Islam, the Muslims plead with Christian leaders "to come together with us on the common essentials of our two religions."

I seriously doubt their intent was to plead for togetherness of any sort. Without having read the actual letter, and based on the harm the Muslims have caused over the years because of their 'peaceful' religion, it's difficult to believe this is anything other than a threat to the world.

Does anyone here have any predictions about what this all means?

Other Comments by Barbara

17. Comment #78103 by Converse02 on October 11, 2007 at 9:16 pm

Koran
Sura 5:51 O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends.

When both religion damns the other to eternal torture in a lake of fire, the process of dehumanization has begun.
There can be no peace.

Other Comments by Converse02

18. Comment #78105 by cal_mertes on October 11, 2007 at 9:34 pm

Rather than being so down on this initiative, why not pursue it and see where it leads?

Granted, Islamism has a horrid history. But this may be a crack in the faith to inject some more moderate ideas.Pursue openness but also be wary and verify!

Other Comments by cal_mertes

19. Comment #78106 by Fanusi Khiyal on October 11, 2007 at 9:51 pm

Okay, can we stop using the nonsense term Islamism? Please, at least in this island of rationality? _The threat is Islam_. Not 'Islamism', whatever the hell that is.

Cal_Mertes

>> Granted, Islamism has a horrid history. But this may be a crack in the faith to inject some more moderate ideas.Pursue openness but also be wary and verify!<<

This is hudna, plain and simple.

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

20. Comment #78108 by mmurray on October 11, 2007 at 10:15 pm

You might want to read the whole letter here

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/11_10_07_letter.pdf

as the Daily Mail is perhaps not the best paper.

While it would be nice if all the worlds religions disappeared in a puff of smoke it is unlikely in the immediate future. This kind of approach at least holds out some home for a moderate version of Islam arising. While this might seem unlikely Christianity manages to wriggle out of the nastier stuff in the Old and New Testaments when it wants to.

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

21. Comment #78110 by mmurray on October 11, 2007 at 10:20 pm

The Guardian have a report on this here

http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,2188742,00.html

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

22. Comment #78111 by Damien White on October 11, 2007 at 10:25 pm

I wonder if the 138 Muslim 'leaders' can exercise any of their own measures within 'their' communities? It would be heartening to see as a signatory on this letter Osama Bin Laden; or any of the major sects currently involved in armed uprising in Iraq; or anyone from the Iranian government; or the PLO; or anyone who has any control over the aforementioned.
Can the Muslims without guns control the Muslims with guns? If they can't (as I suspect) then this letter is nothing but an empty gesture.

Other Comments by Damien White

23. Comment #78112 by eric.malitz on October 11, 2007 at 10:42 pm

even if this "worked out", theres something pretty eerie about these 2 joining together in a mass religious truce.

Other Comments by eric.malitz

24. Comment #78114 by AndreD on October 11, 2007 at 10:52 pm

It's not that simple. Most conflicts that involve Islam tend to be primarily caused by political reasons, and the religions are secondary to that cause.
For instance, Palestine and Iraq. Both conflicts were caused because of a foreign occupier, but the religious differences of the occupied and occupier tended to escalate the conflict.

BTW, I'm not excusing religions or anything, just saying that 'peace' between them is not going to do a hell of a lot.

Other Comments by AndreD

25. Comment #78116 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 11, 2007 at 11:16 pm

The challenge is not Christianity versus Islam, it's a rational world view versus an irrational one. Religion, nationalism and racism are irrational and dangerous dogmas which leverage cognitive short circuits in the human brain.

The ingroup outgroup mentality in all it's forms is the issue, religion is just a particularly nasty subset.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

26. Comment #78120 by Veronique on October 12, 2007 at 12:15 am

Of the named recipients of this letter, the only US religious leader mentioned is that of the Lutheran Church.

Is that not odd? Or am I boxing at shadows? I am worried that Fanusi may be closer to the mark.

It's all very well to say that the conflicts in Islam are political but Islam aspires to political theocracy. One just cannot say that the religious differences are secondary. Religion and politics are inextricably entwined in Islam.

Apart from the Islamic groups that are now forming alliances to rid Iraq of its US oppressor, there are intra-Islamic problems that have translated into violence. And now Turkey is reported as massing on Iraq's northern border against the Kurds. And the Kurds are a mixed grouping as well.

And what is going to happen to all those Muslims that have been swayed, by US fundamental Xtian missionaries sneaking into Baghdad, into eschewing their Islamic faith and adopting Xtianity? If Iraq rises up and pushes the US out, what happens then? More killings by Iraqis on those Iraqis who denied Islam?

Of course you are right Brian, but the ordinary Muslim is so far away from recognising this. Remember Wafan Sultan's rant on TV? Her interviewer couldn't understand what she was saying at all. He was utterly flummoxed by her rant.

Rushdie and Hirsi Ali are now infidels and need to be killed! A religion that requires prayer 5 times a day and whose adherents are far more indoctrinated than xtians are (with the chilling exception of Patrick Henry College students and others of their ilk) are irrational to a greater degree than we can imagine.

Even if this is an ameliorative and conciliatory open letter, I can't see it doing anything of any substance to the grinding escalation of religious and cultural differences in this very real international reality.

And think of the possible backlash of this letter from both camps.

Time for a drink
V

Other Comments by Veronique

27. Comment #78130 by Shuggy on October 12, 2007 at 1:13 am

The phrasing has similarities to the New Testament passage: "He that is not with me is against me" - a passage used by President George Bush when addressing a joint session of Congress nine days after 9/11.

This connection seems to be a pure invention of the Daily Mail, who seem to be referring to Matthew 12:30 and Luke 11:23: "He who is not with me is against me..." and forgetting Mark 9:40 "...whoever is not against us is for us" (That both statements can not be true seems to have excaped the Divine Inspirer of the Greek Testament, but then as RevCort reminds us, He made the laws of logic, so he can break them too.)

What I want to know is, what happened to their epistle to the Jews? (Not to mention the Buddhists, Confucians, Shintoists, etc.)

Other Comments by Shuggy

28. Comment #78134 by epeeist on October 12, 2007 at 1:33 am

Comment #78110 by mmurray

The Guardian have a report on this here

http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,2188742,00.html

And a "Comment is Free" response here - http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/inayat_bunglawala/2007/10/the_challenge_of_muhammad.html

Other Comments by epeeist

29. Comment #78141 by JemyM on October 12, 2007 at 1:50 am

I do not mind if they come together to discuss similarities. When people feels safe, atheism rise.

Other Comments by JemyM

30. Comment #78143 by bamboospitfire on October 12, 2007 at 1:54 am

The true common ground between Christianity and Islam is that both are total batshit. I would be delighted if all those who ascribe to these grotesque systems recognised that.

As has been pointed out above, Christianity and Islam are imiscible concepts. Believers in either sect can't even agree amongst themselves, so I see no prospect of any agreement between the religions.

This letter also seems to fly in the face of the attitude shown by the Muslim doctors, dentists and shop assistants in Britain who seem determined not to have anything to do with anyone who does not conform to their woo-woo ideology.

Other Comments by bamboospitfire

31. Comment #78145 by Philip1978 on October 12, 2007 at 2:02 am

Wouldn't be fun if these idiots did have a better understand of their faiths? They would then realise its all a load of man-made bollocks and slip off down the pub for a pint!
Cheers,
Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

32. Comment #78148 by Bonzai on October 12, 2007 at 2:08 am

To paraphrase Marx, "Deluded in the world, United"

The fact that they have to write such a letter in the first place proves once and for all that religion is a divisive force which slots people into different camps.

Now I am glad that Muslims and Christians find their common ground, what about people who are neither Christians nor Muslims? It is really the height of arrogance to assume that the world revolves around their two brands of medieval delusions.

Other Comments by Bonzai

33. Comment #78149 by IanG on October 12, 2007 at 2:08 am

I think that our general instinct that this could carry some risks could be right, but I think we need to consider why. And it also offers hope.

Not all Muslims eat new-born babies for breakfast.

We should be prepared to accept that many if not most of these signatories desire peaceful, civilised co-existence. However, some at least will not have thought through what that means.

I believe that the fundamental issue here is that, a bit like Sam Harris's recent commentary about allowing one's thinking framework to be defined by others, we are missing the fact that this is a message being sent primarily from one religious group to another, despite the fact that Western society is organised by country not faith. We are a secular society.

The first response to this should be from Western Heads of Government and it should be explicitly secular. Fat chance, I know, given that George Bush has already intimated that the solution to Islamic Fundamentalism is a good dose of Christian fundamentalism. He seeks to reduce the radicalisation of Islam by increasing the radicalism of Christianity. Not smart.

However, I would like to see a response from all the key Western leaders that goes something like this:

"We cannot welcome this courageous initiative too much or praise it too highly. We thank the signatories who took the time to make a plea for something that moves us all: a deep desire for lessened conflict and misery and increased shared humanity.

In order to move this forward it is crucial that we each understand and articulate our underlying principles. Let us clarify the social and political foundations of our liberal democratic societies.

We are secular societies. If you do not understand that, the barriers to making progress are insurmountable. Many of the addressees of your plea are religious leaders. You have to understand that the proper recipients of your proposals are us, the elected governments of our citizens, and the citizens themselves.

By all means write to your fellow believers of faith but understand that, in our society, the Pope, for example, has no special status on moral issues. In fact many of our citizens regard his statements as of lesser value because they are founded on intrinsically unjustifiable faith and belief rather than on reason, evidence and basic considerations of morality. Note that the cultural equivalent of this last statement would not even be permissible in an Islamic society.

In our societies freedom of expression of the individual is fundamental: the State is subordinate to the individual and exists primarily to provide a secure space within which people can pursue their own desires, subject to not harming others. Support and protection of the disadvantaged are amongst other benefits that flow from this system.

So it is with you in our societies: people are free hold whatever beliefs they want, and this includes Muslims. You are free to practise your faith provided you don't interfere with the freedoms of others.

Now we reach the crux: Islam is an explicitly political system as well as a theology. This is incompatible with liberal democracy. We do not say this to foster discord. We say it because it is the century-long sweeping of this issue under the carpet that has led us to where we are today. And we are to blame as much as you. In the interests of respect for intellectual freedom, we have allowed you to become accustomed to the idea that it may perhaps be possible, peacefully for you to eventually seek conversion of our civilisation into a part of a world-wide Islamic state.

This idea is wrong; it is a false hope that contradicts the very foundations of our society.

So, let us be clear on a first point of principle. Interfaith dialogue to increase understanding amongst yourselves is admirable; you have our fervent wishes for the success of your efforts. Go to it! However, understand that your conversation is a subtext to the real dialogue which is with us, the elected heads of government.

Our second issue is with the risks of groups purporting to speak for wider constituencies. We do not claim perfection here, but our system is explicitly designed to give us as the elected leaders a practical and moral mandate to speak and act with authority on half of others. You don't have that. Again, it is a part of your system that there is no one formal leader.

In western societies we are currently exploring the implications of small active groups existing within larger, more passive organisations of people. Specifically we believe that the reluctance of many Christians to speak out against the more obvious excesses of some of their fellow-faithful means that decent people give cover to bigots and murderers.

It is our perception that this problem is enormously greater in the Islamic community.

Our conclusion here is that no amount of inter-faith dialogue will ever fully resolve this matter. More to the point, making such a dialogue the central plank of the hope for a new, more peaceful world is just conceptually ill-founded and self-deluding.

Members of faiths need to work together as far as they are able, but the real dialogue is that between faith and the secular society.

So, we have a question for religious leaders and representatives of all faiths.

Do you have the courage and belief in our shared humanity to begin that conversation?

Do you care enough?

We look forward to your reply and thank you once again for you willingness to reach out.

Yours,

Gordon Brown

George Bush

John Howard

Nicolas Sarkozy

etc.

Other Comments by IanG

34. Comment #78150 by mmurray on October 12, 2007 at 2:24 am

27. Comment #78130 by Shuggy

The contradiction you are worried about is mentioned in the document as follows:

He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me
scatters abroad. (Matthew 12:30)
For he who is not against us is on our side. (Mark 9:40)
... for he who is not against us is on our side. (Luke 9:50)

According to the Blessed Theophylact's Explanation of the New Testament, these
statements are not contradictions because the first statement (in the actual Greek text of
the New Testament) refers to demons, whereas the second and third statements refer to
people who recognised Jesus, but were not Christians.

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

35. Comment #78153 by Flagellant on October 12, 2007 at 2:33 am

One might take this 'overture' a little more seriously if it were to contain a clause to the effect that Osama bin Laden is hereby the subject of a joint fatwa. It should say that he is to desist forthwith or, better still, that he should be given an immediate one-way ticket to paradise.



Truly and veritably, god is grott, merdeiful.

Other Comments by Flagellant

36. Comment #78155 by brainsys on October 12, 2007 at 2:41 am

Boy oh boy the postings here will certainly feed Muslim paranoia.

The nasty bits of the Koran have always been there. Its what has happened politically that has elevated them from relative obscurity to the war cries of modern day Jihad.

Are they much worse than Christian backed 'surges'?

Frankly we are all going to have to accept co-existance as a first step in the retreat from confrontation and intolerence. Co-existance is not about accepting the other view. It is agreeing to disagree.

We should be support them - but perhaps support them in an unexpected way - by challenging any pretence that anybody (other than Prince Charles) can discover a "one God fits all" way of morphing diverse religions together - and presumably leaving atheists out in the cold.

No Muslims are Muslims (well Sunnis, Shias, Wannabbees ..) Christians are Christians (well Catholics, Episcopalians, Baptists & Oral Roberts) and atheists are conservatives, liberals, nationalists, anarchists ... people.

Unless you get co-existance - it just becomes a war of attrition rather than ideas. A very weak position for atheists. Be pragmatic. Jaw-Jaw is always better than War-War. It is not appeasement. Quite the opposite.

Or are we going to be fundamental in not accepting other people's right to religion? Don't we all have a right to be wrong? Its just how do we turn the conflict into one of ideas rather than weapons?

Other Comments by brainsys

37. Comment #78156 by Richard Morgan on October 12, 2007 at 2:44 am

IanG

"We cannot welcome this courageous initiative too much or praise it too highly...
....making such a dialogue the central plank of the hope for a new, more peaceful world is just conceptually ill-founded and self-deluding."

I love your style and all your comments, but I'm not sure that you're quite ready for the diplomatic corps.

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

38. Comment #78159 by IanG on October 12, 2007 at 2:55 am

Thank you Richard Morgan! :)

I may be though.

It's my impression that diplomacy sometimes does involve an element of stating the unavoidable bits.

Maybe: ".......praise it too highly,.........but feel that to place the burden of responsibility on a faith-based group and faith-based dialogue, for seeking solutions that critically involve the secular community, is unreasonable, unfair and would be inevitably doomed to failure."

Other Comments by IanG

39. Comment #78162 by Corylus on October 12, 2007 at 3:02 am

RichardM

I love your style and all your comments, but I'm not sure that you're quite ready for the diplomatic corps.

Now what was the phrase concerning pots and kettles heard recently??

Richard - not getting at you, cariad, but I have to say you do make me smile at times :-)

P.S. What's was with the flashing backside?

Other Comments by Corylus

40. Comment #78163 by hopeful on October 12, 2007 at 3:02 am

I don't know which is more scary, the thought of Christianity and Islam at war, or the thought of them allied together into a world super-religion.

Perhaps I am being paranoid but I think this has disturbing undertones:-

Islam is coming from a total domination perspective, where religion and rule are one.

The west is theoretically secular, yet have a Christianity with growing aspirations toward theocracy.

As IanG points out, Islam approached Christian leaders, not government leaders. And Isam isn't doing this so they can have joint Church picnics with the Christians.

Why is this happening now? Is it just because of all the bad PR muslims have been getting in the west or does Islam sense a changing religious mood in the west and an opportunity to make some kind of strategic move?

Perhaps they now see something they can potentially ally with. They couldn't ally with a splintered, godless, west, but they could ally with another significant religion that was vaguely compatible and appears to have theocratic goals.

Personally I think I'd prefer it if they just continued not liking each other very much (but didn't act on it).

Other Comments by hopeful

41. Comment #78164 by Sharrow on October 12, 2007 at 3:02 am

I have a cunning plan.
All rational people relocate, lock, stock and barrel to some sunny isle. Let's go and take over Australia and New Zealand. It's a bit out of the way but that's part of the plan. There should be enough room, sunny weather and resources for us. The locals can stay as long as they renounce their faiths. Those who can't have to stay quiet or leave. They could have our places in Europe and North America.

We exist on the basis of rational thought and science. It may take a couple of generations but after that, the rest of the world will have killed each other off. In time we can recolonise the rest of the planet.

It sounds a bit extreme but I can't think of a better way....it's a bit like 'On The Beach' in reverse.

Other Comments by Sharrow

42. Comment #78167 by Fanusi Khiyal on October 12, 2007 at 3:07 am

Veronique has it right. Islam is firstly a political system, then a religion for personal use.


And why is it that there is always some atheist trying to justify what Islam is doing by whinging about Christianity? Witness brainsys for example. Could we please try and focus on what Islam actually teaches and what it's history is, rather than trotting out fatous nonsense?

For example, 'coexistence' ever, in the entire history of Islam, worked? I know the anwer: NO.

Talking with these clowns is a waste of time. We should be trying to convince them to abandon Islam, first and foremost, because anything less than that is useless. This is a hudna ploy, pain and simple.

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

43. Comment #78172 by Duff on October 12, 2007 at 3:28 am

Translated from the original arabic, this letter says, "We muslims, paranoid and insecure from living in the 12th century, are tired of watching everyone else enjoy modern civilization, so we would like a little fear and respect from you westerners, or we're going to kill you."

Other Comments by Duff

44. Comment #78174 by mmurray on October 12, 2007 at 3:39 am

We should be trying to convince them to abandon Islam, first and foremost, because anything less than that is useless.

And the likelihood of this happening is ... ?

Translated from the original arabic, this letter says,

It's only 29 pages and it's in english -- why not read it (not that I have of course)?

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

45. Comment #78179 by brainsys on October 12, 2007 at 3:59 am

Fanusi Khiyal wrote:

"And why is it that there is always some atheist trying to justify what Islam is doing by whinging about Christianity? Witness brainsys for example."

Fanusi - you are dammed lucky I can't afford a libel lawyer >:-(

I have never justified Islam. I never could. Please retract that evil lie. I say evil because I have to assume that your problem is the comparison of Islam with (your?) Christianity.

Or is it you don't think it right to talk and co-exist with your enemies? Soviet communism was also an enemy. Was talking to Gorbachev the wrong thing too? Does that imply Reagan, Thatcher et al were justifying communism?

Please justify yourself or have the decency to withdraw your remarks.

Other Comments by brainsys

46. Comment #78181 by USA_Limey on October 12, 2007 at 4:09 am

To those who have made some vaguely hopeful comments that this is a positive thing just think on this: why weren't the Jews included? Where is their letter?

As the elder statesmen of the three monotheistic religions from which the other two flowed I would have thought their inclusion was a prerequisite if it really is about 'coming together on the common essentials of our religions'

I don't buy this for one second.

Other Comments by USA_Limey

47. Comment #78182 by GBile on October 12, 2007 at 4:14 am

Pappa Ratzi I know, but who are all these Beatitudes ?

Anyway, the 138 Muslim scholars will protect world peace better when they would write letters to their fellow muslims, explaining that 'love your neighbor' also extends to sunni/shia neighbors in Bagdad, or to Afghan boys with a dollar in their pocket. Start writing these letters to be read in every mosque on fridays, esteemed scholars, and after they take effect come back to us.

Other Comments by GBile

48. Comment #78187 by IanG on October 12, 2007 at 4:48 am

To those who have made some vaguely hopeful comments that this is a positive thing just think on this: why weren't the Jews included? Where is their letter?

This could, potentially, become a never-ending list of various faiths etc. However, I do believe that you are right. This is a most obvious omission, particularly given the shared Abrahamic God concept. So this says something important about the model of the world which these scholars are using to give context to their thinking.

Perhaps the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury will include this matter in their response.

If not, that will give us an insight into the context of their own thinking.

I think it also underlines the point that this conversation needs to take place between faith and secularity. Interfaith dialogue may have some utility despite the intellectual incompatibility which defines different faiths - these guys have no problem inventing reasons for anything they want to do so just give a Jesuit five minutes and they'll have a basis to proceed.

The main message should be that they can talk amongst themselves as much as they want, and we hope it might improve things, but there is no special status for religion in a secular society and they must start accepting that this special status has gone on for too long.

Judgments and decisions must be based on the foundations of reason and best available evidence, and upon individual rights of freedom and self-expression.

Life is a never-ending work-in-progress of finding better answers day-by-day, to the problems and puzzles that face us; it is not a journey towards any sort of utopian "End of History" state of perfection, whether this be Communism or Christianity.

Other Comments by IanG

49. Comment #78189 by bucketchemist on October 12, 2007 at 5:01 am

How about a response from the Christian community asserting its allegiance to secular government and the peaceful unity of nations through political process and the separation of church and state. That wouldn't hurt I wouldn't think. Unless of course the Xtian churches are more concerned with waving their own theocratic cohones than with actually doing anything useful.

Other Comments by bucketchemist

50. Comment #78192 by Vaal on October 12, 2007 at 5:07 am

In their letter to the pope they said .. "They also cite the Koran as placing a duty on Muslims to treat Christians and Jews as followers of those prophets with particular friendship."

OK. So how do they regard atheists/humanists? I think that is very clear, they threaten them with murder, and regard them as less than human, venomously describing them as "kaffirs", or "infidels."

How can there be any understanding, empathy or respect of human rights while their religion supports the appalling and contemptible concept of apostasy?

Other Comments by Vaal