People attend a Mass in tribute to priest Jacques Hamel in the Rouen Cathedral on July 31, 2016.
Muslims across France were invited to participate in Catholic ceremonies today to mourn a priest whose murder by jihadist teenagers sparked fears of religious tension. Masses will be celebrated across the country in honour of octogenarian Father Jacques Hamel, whose throat was cut in his church on July 26, 2016, in the latest jihadist attack on France. / AFP / CHARLY TRIBALLEAU (Photo credit: CHARLY TRIBALLEAU/AFP/Getty Images)
This is an extrapolation on Chalcedon’s post from Monday, ‘Islamic violence’? Shortly after reading his post, I came across this from Archbishop Cranmer on much the same subject, and it moved me, and I see much connection between the two.
Praying before a blasphemous icon of another Jesus, standing in the shadow of a sacrificial cross which they deny, beneath the dome of a cathedral church steeped in idolatry, myths and deception, Muslims throughout France and Italy attended Mass yesterday. From Rouen, Nice and Paris to Milan, Naples and Rome, hundreds flocked to express solidarity and compassion with Europe’s Roman Catholics, many still reeling, weeping and mourning the loss of a much-loved elderly priest, Abbé Jacques Hamel, whose throat was slit by Islamists as he celebrated Mass last week.
All Muslims are exhorted to the greater jihad, to strive against the flesh and persevere in the purposes of Allah, but not all jihad is holy war. All Muslims are not Islamists, but Muslims are becoming terrorists. It is futile, patronising and dangerous to deny it. Islamists are extremists who kill the innocent; Muslims who are moderate and enlightened seek to worship in peace. Islam is not all about oppressing, torturing, murdering and slaughtering. It just seems like it. […]
Behold! The disciples said: O Jesus, son of Mary, can your Lord send down to us a table from heaven? Jesus said: Fear Allah, if you are believers. They said: We only wish to eat of it and satisfy our hearts, and to know that you have indeed told us the truth and that we ourselves may be witnesses of it. Jesus, the son of Mary, said: O Allah our Lord! Send down to us a table from heaven, that there may be for us – the first and the last of us – a festival and a sign from you; and provide for our sustenance, for you are the best sustainer. Allah said: I will send it down to you; but if any of you after that resists faith I will punish him with a penalty such as I have not inflicted on anyone among all the peoples (Surah Al-Maida 5:112-115).
What is this table from heaven? What is this meal which satisfies hearts and witnesses to the truth? What is this festival and sign which provides spiritual sustenance? What peace and reconciliation does it bring to the hearts of those who share it? ‘This is my body...’ […]
There were tears during the sign of the peace. ‘God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself‘ (2Cor 5:19). In their shared humanity, Muslims and Christians bore witness to the humanity of Jesus, his sacrifice and death, his reconciling love, his resurrection and glorification. ‘For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them‘ (Mt 18:20). The Living God is present in the world, if not in bread and wine. We can meet Him, pray to Him and listen to Him. That is our privilege through Christ. And in that communion we stand with all believers in the world and throughout all history. And we stand with all participant peace-loving Muslims, too. ‘This is my blood…‘
And that is the thing, isn’t it? As always, we have to distinguish between enemies of our faith and our countries, and yes, our way of life, and those that have come to us for relief. And those seeking relief are multitudes, while those who seek to destroy are not.
This, of course, is something that our political class has trouble in understanding, most Moslems desire peace, but not all, most Christians also desire peace, but not all. Chalcedon said on Monday:
If we insist on mining the past so that we can use it to portray a religion as it is now, then we fall into the trap of those Muslims who pretend that the modern West is made up of ‘crusaders’ determined to reverse the defeats of the Middle Ages; the method is the same – they did it then, so they will do it now, they have not changed. The need to scapegoat and stigmatise the outside is a common enough one, found in all cultures. But the Pope, in his comments, refuses to go with it.
He and the Pope are correct. When we seek to stigmatize other groups of people, as enemies, as the other, we dishonor ourselves. Sometimes in order to defend ourselves, we will, however much we seek to avoid it, injure or kill the innocent. But we have the guide of Just War Doctrine to inform us, and our leaders, of how we should defend ourselves, and our countries, and yes, our co-religionists, or even other innocent bystanders. What have we heard lately of the Yazidi? Last I heard, the Kurds are doing a credible job, within their abilities to defend them, but we no longer hear much, do we?
So we should be not afraid to defend our faith, and our civilization, which has done much for the world, and has still more to offer. But we must remember the strictures that define us, and not target the innocent to do so.
All Along the Watchtower 
A good way of rounding this theme up, Neo. I still do not quite know what it is that the critics of the Pope wanted him to say. There are millions of Muslims living in the West, and anyone who thinks that it would have been a bright idea to have offended them all, needs to rethink the concept of the bright idea.
That said, yes, as you say, where militant Islamism is a threat, we have to deal with it. This is taking time, but then given our previous experiences in the region, that is understandable.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you. Nor do I, although I suppose he could have simply said pray for the victims, which is not very satisfactory either. Most here have assimilated, actually rather faster than say, my ancestors did. Bad apples, sure there are, but that’s still no reason to throw out the baby. Better vetting would be a fine idea, for us, and likely you, and we will have to deal with the threat, but perhaps we should define it first? You know, try something different.
LikeLiked by 1 person
In the circumstances it was clearly necessary to say something about Islam and violence, and if he hadn’t, he’d have been accused of ducking things. The refugee problem is on such a scale as to have made vetting impossible.
LikeLiked by 1 person
True, it is, but why is it only the west that is inundated? Well, I suspect I know the answer, as do you, but there is really no reason why these refugees (either from war, or economic) should inundate Europe, rather than, say for example, Saudi Arabia. That’s not entirely fair, of course, Jordan, in particular, has done about all they can. But eventually, we vetted almost everyone back in 45, not always very sensibly, but we did. It’s supposed to be up to us who we invite into our home, although that does not negate our duty of charity in the slightest.
Yes, I think he did as well. If you haven’t seen it, Annie has an excellent reblog on the Popes of the last hundred years up.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Back then they were willing to be vetted and not, I think, as numerous as now. The Saudis clearly won’t let anyone in – and I doubt anyone much wants to go there. Thanks for the heads up about Annie.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s likely true, I suspect. No saudi itself increasingly looks like it’s having troubles, especially with unemployment of their foreign workers. I see little reason for anyone to want to, but that’s me.
Sure, she finds some good stuff. 🙂
LikeLike
“Bad Apples”. That’s the very issue that is at stake in the Islamic world / mind-sets. “Who are the Muslim ‘bad apples’”. I have heard the idea expressed by Muslim converts to Christianity “That there are many good people who are Muslims but that when they become ‘Good Muslims’ they become bad people”.
There is a problem in Islam that has to be addressed ideologically. We have two options:-
We may argue with the moderates for the truth of a reinterpreted Islam against its faulty traditional interpretation. However such re-interpretations are difficult to square with the plain statements of the Quran and the most traditionally reliable Hadith. Although this approach will appeal to moderate people I fear it will never prevent the continual upsurge of radical Islam which has far too much authoritative data (from an Islamic perspective) to draw upon. – or
We may confront the traditional / radical interpretation as that which is true to the Quran and Hadith in our efforts to falsify the whole system.
The Popes comment could have presented as a questioning of Muslim’s asking them to consider what it is gives rise to radical Islamic ideologies and how they might address them. However I think, his comments did not assist in addressing these matter but confused the issue with violence in general.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The link for those who may be interested relates to my comment a few days ago about what is ‘typical Islam’. The debate provides a good understanding of both moderate and radical/traditional methods of interpreting Islam.
Shabir Ally is a Muslim advocating peace, who is one of the foremost Muslim debaters and David Wood a Christian. David’s involvement in Islamic debate began through a friendship and ongoing debate with his Muslim college friend Nabeel Qureshi. This led to Nabeel’s conversion to Christ, Nabeel is now a prominent apologist speaking internationally for the Christian faith.
Most of the evangelical apologist I am aware of confronting Islam take the approach of this debate in arguing that radical Islam more accurately represents the religion of Islam as found in the Quran and Hadith. Shabir Ally presents a case for an alternative interpretation to much of Islamic origins and historical interpretation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: A Case in Point | All Along the Watchtower