Bishop urges Christians to call God 'Allah'
Catholic leader believes it would help ease tensions between religions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: August 15, 2007
3:28 p.m. Eastern
Bishop Tiny Muskens (Courtesy Radio Netherlands Worldwide)
Catholic churches in the Netherlands should use the name Allah for God to ease tensions between Muslims and Christians, says a Dutch bishop.
Tiny Muskens, the bishop of Breda, told the Dutch TV program "Network" Monday night he believes God doesn't mind what he is called, Radio Netherlands Worldwide reported.
The Almighty is above such "discussion and bickering," he insisted.
Muskens points to Indonesia, where he served 30 years ago, as an example for Dutch churches. Christians in the Middle East also use the term Allah for God.
"Someone like me has prayed to Allah yang maha kuasa (Almighty God) for eight years in Indonesia and other priests for 20 or 30 years," Muskens said. "In the heart of the Eucharist, God is called Allah over there, so why can't we start doing that together?"
Muskens thinks it could take another 100 years, but eventually the name Allah will be used by Dutch churches, promoting rapprochement between the two religions, he said, according to Radio Netherlands.
However, a survey published today in the Netherlands' largest newspaper, De Telegraaf, showed 92 percent of the more than 4,000 people polled oppose the bishop's view, the Associated Press reported.
Some letters to the paper were filled with ridicule for the bishop.
"Sure. Lets call God Allah. Lets then call a church a mosque and pray five times a day. Ramadan sounds like fun," wrote Welmoet Koppenhol.
The chairman of the Protestant Church in the Netherlands, Gerrit de Fijter, told the Dutch paper he welcomed any attempt to "create more dialogue," according to the AP. But he said, "Calling God 'Allah' does no justice to Western identity. I see no benefit in it."
A Muslim spokesman, for Amsterdam's union of Moroccan mosques, said Muslims had not asked for such a gesture from Christians, the AP reported.
Tensions with the Netherlands' 1-million-strong Muslim community have been high since the 2004 murder of filmmaker Theo Van Gogh by a Muslim avenging a film critical of Islam.
Last week, politician Geert Wilders talked about banning the Quran, shortly after the head of a group of former Muslims, Ehsan Jami, compared Islam's prophet Muhammad with al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden.
Muskens made similar remarks several year ago about using the name of Allah, Radio Netherlands reported. He also suggested replacing the national Christian holiday Whit Monday � celebrated the day after Pentecost � with an Islamic religious day.
The bishop also has offended Muslims, saying in 2005 Islam was a religion without a future because it has too many violent aspects.
The idea really ain't bad.
The problem is it came as a result of terrorism and fear -- as opposed to ecumenical good will.
Caving in to those who threaten to eliminate your church and your country is unwise.
BMT
That fella must be a regular customer of the Amsterdam drug trade.
HBB
Looks like Bishop Tiny has a tiny brain. I suppose under his scenario the Pope should be called the Caliphate of Catholicism.
And to think there are idiots out there who might listen to Bishop Tiny Brain.
My old priest is, I know without a doubt, right now spinning in his grave like a top. He'd of had some fire or brimstone for them..... JMO, Dutch.
Caving in to those who threaten to eliminate your church and your country is unwise.
Agreeded +1000
Maybe he could suggest that Muslims use God or Yahweh instead of Allah. No, I guess that wouldn't work, since they'd probably, like, want to kill him for it or something. Damn fatwas.
As a Roman Catholic let me just state:
What an idiot!
rb
I think Steve No is a fairly bright guy Rick....grin
The idea really ain't bad.
Not Bad? I'd hate to explain to God why I called him by Satan's name.
Dick
rb
I think Steve No is a fairly bright guy Rick....grin
Sure and change Christ to Mohamid then we can just all say we are good muslims.
This bishop needsa to go back to molesting alter boys
That is just plain stupid talk. I do beleive someone needs to find a new day job and give up the religion gig.
CK
Well he did say he was planning on retirement soon....
Christians in the Middle East also use the term Allah for God.
If they do, it's probably 'cause they don't wanna end up looking like a Pez dispenser.
Now that's an image.... I hadn't thought about a Pez dispenser in a long time....
Christians in the Middle East also use the term Allah for God.
they do that because the arabic word for God is Allah.
the dutch word is God
the french word is Dieu
the spanish word is Dios
the Persian word is Khoda
The Swedish word is Gud
the Russian word is Bog
and the Arabic word is Allah
it would be no more appropriate to use an arabic word in a dutch speech than to use the russian word while speaking japanese.
many moslims in the english speaking world correctly use the word "God" to refer to God in a standard (non-religious) english language conversation.
Poole
While I'm quite sure that the average Dutchman is upset over what Bellhop Tiny Muscles has said, I'm unconcerned.
I feel roughly the same about Arch Bellhop Pezman Pu Pu over in Africa.
Nuts or not, it certainly proves that the christian Church in the Netherlands is accepting its Dhimmi status without a fight.
What it proves is that the Christian church in the Netherlands is no longer Christian.
Dick
First off, let me just say that Bishop Tiny is derranged and the idea stinks.
On the other hand. . .
I remember a discussion of this waaaaay back-- what was the etymology of "God." The lecture was cool. Basically, you have a horde of outsiders coming out of the Steppes way back in the dark pre-historic past and settling adjacent to the Mid-East. They interacted with the African (Egyptian) and Mesopotamian peoples.
One huge difference between these people and their neighbors is that these folks worshiped one god. All the others worshiped a myriad of gods. The best they can figure is that these people called their one male god "Tu" or "Ju." Eventually the idea spread.
Greeks called him "Zeus"
Romans called him "Jupiter"
Semites called him "That-which-cannot-be-named" but represented him as "JHVH" which can be pronounced "Yahweh" or without a huge stretch "Allah"
The point is that the concepts of a The Big Hairy Thunderer In the Sky all comes back to the same cultural root and the language follows it.
Shaman, In case you have not noticed, the 'God' that we worship is kinda different in outlook then the 'allah' that the muzzys follow into suicide, murder, and chaos.
Names DO make a difference..............
Nuts or not, it certainly proves that the christian Church in the Netherlands is accepting its Dhimmi status without a fight.
It is shocking to me that so many in the western world appear so unconcerned with the slow<or not so slow> creep of islam....especially those on the Left who hold the value of "tolarance" so high. islam appears to be the very antithesis of tolarance.FWIW:
Robert Spencer author of the The Myth of Islamic Tolerance defines dhimmitude as :
Dhimmitude is the status that Islamic law, the Sharia, mandates for non-Muslims, primarily Jews and Christians. Dhimmis, �protected� or �guilty� people, are free to practice their religion in a Sharia regime, but are made subject to a number of humiliating regulations designed to enforce the Qur'an's command that they "feel themselves subdued" (Sura 9:29). This denial of equality of rights and dignity remains part of the Sharia, and, as such, are part of the legal superstructure that global jihadists are laboring through violence to restore everywhere in the Islamic world, and wish ultimately to impose on the entire human race.[8]
I saw this on the FOX NEWS ticker last night . My thought ,then and now : Can't ANYBODY fire the bastard ?
Semites called him "That-which-cannot-be-named" but represented him as "JHVH" which can be pronounced "Yahweh" or without a huge stretch "Allah"
Allah & JHVH are not derived from the same root (JeHoVaH is derived from YHWH)
numerous old testamtent names, which are still in use today, end in the word "el" which mean "god"... Dani-el, Micha-el, Gabri-el etc etc
"el" in older semitic languages, such as Hebrew is the same root as the word as "ilah" in modern arabic (the most widespread of all semitic languages), where it means "god" (lower case), that gives us, in its proper form, al-ilah which contracts to Allah which means "God" (upper case).
This is not a religious discussion, but a lingusitic one... my other hobby....
shoot good
Poole
Did not the Muslims and the Jews descend from the same original tribes and did not Christianity descend from Judaism?
Do not Christians, Jews, and Muslims all pray to the same "God the Father"?
It would only make sense that God's name would be shared among the the several groups.
One might also do well to remember the Spanish Inquisition and perhaps The Crusades. The Muslims certainly have no corner on church sanctioned violence.
Did not the Muslims and the Jews descend from the same original tribes and did not Christianity descend from Judaism?
Do not Christians, Jews, and Muslims all pray to the same "God the Father"?
It would only make sense that God's name would be shared among the the several groups.
One might also do well to remember the Spanish Inquisition and perhaps The Crusades. The Muslims certainly have no corner on church sanctioned violence.
That's good enough for me, ....
I'll sign on to livin' under sharia law .....
Is this like a lottery, ...
what are the prizes...?
I'm goin' off line and will call all my friends and promote this idea.
Yup.
GTC
Galileo, Joan of Arc, and a few ladies in early Salem might make the point that living under Christian law has not always been a rosy proposition.
Good Lord man, your not drinking from the moral equivalence cup are you....?
http://www.presenceofmind.net/gsw/Islam.htmlFrom the above link:
"...
President Bush says that most Muslims want to live and worship in peace. This is undoubtedly true. The question is, what will 'most Muslims' do in the presence of Jihadi warriors making the demand that Islam has always made, submit or die?
We know the answer, don't we? They may not join the Jihad, but they will not oppose it, either.
They cannot oppose it, not and continue to be Muslims. Two types of people can say, "You have the right to refuse to submit to the will of Allah." Those two types of people are non-Muslims and former-Muslims. No practicing, observant, non-apostate Muslim can say those words, because to say them is the essence of Islamic apostasy.
And thus the moral equivalency argument fails on two grounds:
First, while Judeo-Christian and Islamic apocrypha and history might be similarly if not equally violent, only Islam systematically deploys its apocrypha to rationalize violent outrages in the present day. The quibbling equivalizer's counter to this is to cite abortion clinic bombings and random acts of violence against particular Muslims. These events are not sanctioned by secular or religious authorities, but even if they were, they pale in comparison to the slaughter effected in the name of Islam every day. Thousands were murdered in New York and Washington, hundreds in Bali, hundreds more in Nigeria, dozens of innocents are killed every week in Israel, and all this carnage is sanctioned and financed by theocratic Islamic states.
Second, there is no faith or doctrine of the West that demands universal submission--on pain of murder. It is not the job of Christians or Jews to defend the West. That task belongs to the philosophers, who so far have abstained from acting. But we don't need contemporary philosophers to bear a load that is obviously too heavy for them. We stand on the shoulders of giants, after all. The West is pluralistic and secular and tolerant. Not always, but as a matter of consistent policy, with the exceptions being regarded as aberrations and crimes. By contrast, Islam is universalist, theocratic and inherently intolerant.
The derision by the politically correct of Robertson and Falwell notwithstanding, it is nevertheless true that Islam is a warrior culture. It was born in war, and it remains committed to holy war down to the present day. Unreconstructed, unreformed, unrepentant. Individual Muslims may seek to live and worship in peace. But their creed--and the theocratic states seeking to advance that creed--does, must and will pursue universal submission to the will of Allah. By persuasion if possible. By coercion if not. And by murder if all else fails.
Islam is a religion of war. To equate it in any way with the West is not just an error but an abomination."
Yes, he is. First you reach back a thousand years, or at least a few hundred to the Wars of Religion in Europe, and say see how terrible the Christians are. Of course you have to ignore the fact that Christians got over that, ceased using mutilation and torture as criminal punishments, ceased punishing moral faults with death by stoning, abolished slavery, separated church law from the state, adopted religious tolerance, and never adopted the practice of suicide/murder of innocents to promote whatever depraved brand of Islam these demons favor.
I really don't feel threatened by crazed Mennonites or overamped Presbyterians these days. Call me Islamophobic, I guess.
Hello....Idaho Shooter....tap tap tap.....this thing on? Are you ready to recant that post yet?
moral equivalence?????
Never heard the term before, guess I'll have to fire up Google again.
Recant?????? You mean like Galileo was forced to recant his teachings of Heliocentrism?
I have no sympathy for Islamic terrorists. I applaud our Marines and Soldiers every time they route another out of his rat hole.
But before we condemn an entire culture for holding a religious belief which is slightly different than our own, we should take a bit closer look at our own history and theirs, and really compare what history has to say.
Islam was once responsible for highest points of civilization. It was the culture of learning and of commerce. Is it a coincidence that we use ARABIC numerals?
Where would our culture be today without the ancient influence of Alexandria?
No learned culture can exist without commerce to support its scholars. And no commerce can exist without warriors to protect that commerce. Is that not why our Navy patrols the seas and our soldiers are posted around the globe.
Of course the Muslims developed fierce armies. Such is mandatory for any culture to survive. Without their fierce armies, the Jews would not have survived to the time of Christ's birth. They all would have gone the way of the vanished tribes.
Can any deny that Christianity was spread through the might of the military? How many priests were in the company of Cortez as he slaughtered the Native Peoples of Central America and converted the survivors?
Before we Christians condemn Islam for the blood upon their hands, we better get some of it washed off of our own hands.
Yes, Christianity has turned the other cheek. And hopefully the majority of Islam can soon gain control of their militant factions. Until that time we who care for peace, no matter our religious tendencies, will have to combat those militants where ever they raise their ugly head.
But I will not condemn the entire Islamic culture, nor will I deny their ancient contributions to the prosperity we enjoy today.
their contributions were few and ancient, their crimes are pervasive and current.....not much to talk about.
When they put down the fatwas, the suicide vests, the honor killings, the commitment to destroy Israel, and to establish the Caliphate, enforcing sharia world wide.....when they drop those little problem behaviors, I'll treat them as a religion and not a murderous death cult.
Till then, here's hoping you have a lot to cheer about for those Marines you support.
Okay, I am back with a bit more time now.
Obviously the achievements of Alexandria were before the birth of Muhammad in 570 AD, but those achievements were of the same tribes and the same peoples who later became followers of Muhammad.
While Europe and the European Christian church were struggling to throw off the yoke of the Dark Ages, Science and culture were alive and well in the East or Muslim World. The reintroduction of that science and technology to the west is largely responsible for the Renaissance.
Sadly though due to conflicts between the Muslim world and the Christian, revisionist historians over the last several hundred years have made light of the Muslim influence and unduly credited Greek influence for this recovery.
There is good evidence that West African Muslims traded and settled in the Americas long before Columbus' voyages. It is mentioned in the earliest documents of discovery that many of the East Indies' natives were of Black complexion. It is interesting also that many of the native place names were of Islamic origin. That is until they were renamed by the Europeans.
Muhammad founded a religion of peace, learning, and compassion. He founded it upon teachings of the God of Abraham, interpreted through his experiences, to make it more suited to his peoples. Is that any different from any other prophet in any other religion?
Also we should remember that it has not been that long since genocide was practiced by a Christian culture ruling a Christian nation.
None can deny the wholesale slaughter of many "heathen savage" peoples by the U S Army to make way for expansion of Christian People from European descent. The United States did practice genocide until the late 1800's.
Also large scale genocide was practiced by Christian nations and Christian peoples in Europe as late as 1944. I doubt that I need to expound upon that matter.
I will repeat that the hands of the Muslims are no bloodier than those of our Christian Fathers.
I would like to post an opinion about this. I think that freedom includes the right to choose between good and evil ways, to believe in god or not. I also think that politics lead to build laws that reduce individual freedom, normally in order to stabilize individual wellness at an average level. When you mix religion and politics, you risk some really bloody consequences, because you mix the "art" of making laws for every one on a (possibly very wide) territory and the religious way of telling people what is good and what is not ... no matter the fact all the citizens could not share the same opinions, sexes, races, ages ...
That's why islam can be so bloody and so restrictive for individual rights and freedom: because there are still some countries or trends that belive in the coran not simply as a way of thinking for the ones who belive what it tells but as a politic basement for the whole society and as a law in itself muslims have to impose to every one. That's the politic side of it ... thinking of it as law for a territory or society and not only for individuals who choosed it, and also use the holy book and its interpretations to find and rule the warrios you need to reach and deserve your political aims.
I think that islam, out of politics, can be as peaceful as other religions or atheism.
In facts, i think that christians have also been quite bloodier ... when relegion was embedded in politics. Same problem with some muslim trends.
That's the origin of the famous sentence "give back to cesar what belongs to cesar and to god what belongs to god" (not sure of the translation).
Oh yes ... i think that dutchs are really strange ...
No, because the militant forms of Islam finds your very existence an offense to their god.
It would be like a Negro putting a good Christian KKK posse "on ignore". How long ago was it that happened? HERE. In the name of Christianity (among other convenient excuses)?
One of the problems with both Christianity and Islam is that they are based on texts that are as much as thousands of years old, and without understanding language and cultures of the time, you can pretty much find anything you want in there. And people do. JMO, Dutch.
Oh, right, Africans discovered America. I see where you're coming from now.
The revisionists are the ones who try to credit third world people with all sorts of scientific and cultural achievments, which they then miraculously lost or forgot and went back to living in goatsh!t huts with their livestock, because the evil Europeans stole their culture and they just never could find it again.
Because it would be heresy to acknowledge the obvious fact that European culture and institutions have been far more successful than any other in the world because they are, well, superior to those of most other societies.
What you are reciting are multicultural fables, not history.
Steve,
You seem to be forgetting about 600 years of dark ages. You remember those times when most of Western Europe slid back into the stone age.
While Europe was moving backward in time, civilization was flourishing with the growth of great cities and institutions of higher learning in much of the rest of the world.
Because it would be heresy to acknowledge the obvious fact that European culture and institutions have been far more successful than any other in the world because they are, well, superior to those of most other societies.
After the fall of the Roman Empire, European Christian civilization fell into a pretty sorry state of affairs. We could just as easily take a picture of the world circa 850 AD and claim the Muslim peoples were obviously superior to the Europeans. Or we could compare the Europeans to the Chinese of the time or perhaps the Mayans in the Americas.
A people's prominence in the affairs of the world tend to be cyclical in nature. That does not mean any one people or culture is superior to another. It just depends on which window in time one wishes to peer through.
Oh, right, Africans discovered America. I see where you're coming from now.
No, I think historians pretty solidly agree that honor belongs to the Scandinavians. Especially since Scandinavian carvings have been found as far east as Minnesota and dated to 1030AD.
But that certainly does not mean other peoples of the world were not also exploring and discovering at the same time and subsequently.
Is it not curious that the enlightened courts of Europe including Spain, Portugal, and England had no knowledge of Lief Erickson's travels? Why was it necessary for Columbus to repeat the discovery of the Americas? Perhaps ancient peoples were not very good at sharing information across the world.
The revisionists are the ones who try to credit third world people with all sorts of scientific and cultural achievments, which they then miraculously lost or forgot and went back to living in goatsh!t huts with their livestock, because the evil Europeans stole their culture and they just never could find it again.
Careful, there, Steve, or someone is going to point out something little like the fact that the Romans worked concrete, but it wasn't re-invented until the 1800's, or that the Chinese were drilling for natural gas in the 500's, and piping it dozens of miles to cities for use.
Knowledge has been lost by many civilizations throughout history, often after their centers were destroyed by "uncivilized hordes". Incidentally, the center of much Muslim knowledge was Persia, not Arabia. Persia, of course, was knocked off it's perch for the most part by the Mongols. FWIW, Dutch.
I say it's time we insisted that the Moslems called God by his real name - "Figment" - as in "figment of the imagination" - now if we can only get those Dutch Bishops on side!
