BACK TO IBN RUSHD (AKA AVERROES)!

Where is Ibn Rushd when we all need him more than ever?
This is not a frivolous question, but a very serious one. In the third century A.D.,the Christian theologian Tertullian asked: "What has Jerusalem to do with Athens?"
What he meant by this was, essentially, what do empirically-based knowledge and divine revelation have to do with one another? This viewpoint continued to be important for a few centuries. Enough for the last Roman Emperors to order the old Greek academies closed once Christianity became compulsory courtesy of the emperor Theodosius in 390. I am not as well acquainted with the process of reconciliation in Judaism as I am in Christianity, but I'm willing to bet Ben Maimon (also known as Maimonides) at least completed that process in Judaism as Thomas Aquinas (with addenda from the Franciscan scientist Roger Bacon) performed that very necessary-for-scientific-and-technological-service for--actually, more for Western Christianity as opposed to Eastern Christianity. What Aquinas, BenMaimon et al did was:they constructed the philosophical underpinnings by which scientific and technological progress could live under the umbrella of, and be seen as being part of, divine revelation.Without this, some nutty monk or hedgerow priest might have been able to call even a windmill heretical. (Step up, Don Quixote!) A millennium ago, Islam led the world in science and technology. They did so because the Caliphate had plenty of Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians inside it and because there was then a Muslim party called the Mu'tazilites. Suffice it to say for the moment, their theology left the door open for human reason, and empirically acquired knowledge, to come under the umbrella of divine revelation.  One of, if not the, foremost Mu'tazilite known as Ibn Rushd or Averroes, actually laid the ground for the work of both Aquinas and Maimonides. The Mu'tazilites were opposed by the Ash'arites.The Ash'arites basically said, nothing happens without God taking an active part and to say anything else is heresy. So, too, is the idea of humans being co-creators with God. Essentially, they did not believe in the laws of physics nor even in cause and effect. The Ash'arites won and, today, the Muslim sects without the Ash'arite stamp on them need to be looked for. Mainstream Islam is almost completely Ash'arite today. There are those seeking to reopen the doors of free inquiry and independent research within Islam today, and their numbers are growing, but they need an oilfield or two under them to have the power they need to spread their words and to have those who agree with them to courageously say so instead of keeping a cowardly silence. That's also one reason the Islamists are doomed to defeat: without Jews and Christians, all of whom the Islamists wish to murder, all the techno-scientific progress of the last six centuries would go gurgling down the drain and the resurgent Caliphate would be hardly larger than 500 years ago, except maybe for new areas of Eurabia.Underpinnings are important, ladies and gentlemen! If they go, so do the bridges! Maybe not immediately, but soon--and Muslims could not shore them up and no one else, if they're smart, would want to do it for them!
In my opinion, the two 'persons' Islam needs today more than ever are: 1)Thomas Aquinas, to build the underpinnings for earthly progress, and 2)Thomas Jefferson, to apply to Islam what the original said of Christianity: "If my neighbor says there are thirty gods, or no god, what is that to me? It neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket." Maybe today's Islam needs many Aquinases and Jeffersons, but they need to act together, in concert and with the faith that it is they, as opposed to the Islamist enemies of all of us, who are truly doing God's work. Only thus will they find the strength and courage they need to contend with the common enemies of all of  modern civilization. The Islamists are enemies to the best in Islam as well as everything in other faiths; that cannot be said often enough right here, right now. Perhaps the anti-Islamist Muslims ought to have, "Back To Ibn Rushd!" as a rallying cry.

Save The Children

This Good Friday I have a few things on my mind, but one thing seems to be outstanding: children. Specifically, how abused children are by different branches of the two larger Abrahamic faith communities. That example closest to home for most of us is, of course, the discoveries not only of much more sexual abuse of children than was believed among the Catholic clergy here and in Europe but, possibly worse, the almost systematic coverup of it among the bishops. The cherry atop this ugly-tasting sundae is that Benedict (Should I say Maladict?)when he was still just Josef RatZinger, was in on the coverup. Now John Allen said that Ratzinger wanted to move much quicker than anyone else in the Church hierarchy against this abuse and I for one have no reason to disbelieve him. However, I do wonder (considering how much more ground the Pope has to cover) where did Ratzinger start? Is the rest of the hierarchy that far back? God help us all, then!
Lest any Islamists start gloating, let me also say that (to date) Islam comes off looking just as bad if not even worse. Did Muhammad really marry Ayesha when he was MY age (53) and she was SIX?! And did he really consummate with her three years later when she was NINE?!? To say this does NOT look good is putting it very, VERY mildly. Branches of contemporary Islam come off no better: Warlock Ayatollah Khomeini actually said an infant daughter still at her mother's breast could be promised to some dirty old man (like himself) Not to mention child marriage is still legal on the Arabian Peninsula (Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Gulf states?) and, finally, the Palestinian Authority is showing less love for their people's children than the Israelis and Westerners are: they encourage children to become suicide bombers. If any individuals or societies have done worse by their children, don't tell me; I don't want to know!
Maureen Dowd is probably right: a nun needs to be chosen Pope to clean up this particularly noisome mess. Also, one of the first tasks of reopened ijtihad has to be to render Islam as a whole plenty more child-friendly than it currently is. But let us all pray that children be loved and taught without abuse. Let us pray for ourselves as well that we might create more effective safeguards against such abuse which always means a premature end to real childhood. Let us also remember Who it is that said,"Let the children come to me, and don't hinder them, for the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to such as these." (MT 19:14)

WELCOME

Welcome to my new blog, ladies and gentlemen. I will be commenting on a wide range of issues--political, environmental, religio-theological, spiritual, and intellectual but always independent and never along an unthinking party line. I will blow the trumpet loudest for freedom of expression and, above all, complete religious LIBERTY everywhere on earth! Reopen the doors to ijtihad and anchor them to stay open! As temporal entities, Christendom and the Caliphate are equally dead and both need stakes through their black hearts!!

INDISPENSABLE FOR SALVATION, TOO

RELIGIOUS LIBERTY IS INDISPENSABLE NOT
ONLY FOR PROGRESSIVE, CIVILIZED LIFE BUT ALSO FOR SALVATION ITSELF!!
That's right, everyone! Your eyes are not--I repeat, are not--playing tricks on you!! I say that as we fight this war against terrorism one of our war aims, worldwide religious liberty needs to be one of them, if not the chief aim!
Those of you now reading this are probably asking yourselves, "Why is religious liberty indispensable to salvation?" Well, let's explore this a little bit. Especially in light of one of the mightiest prophetic phrases from the book of Micah,6:8:"He has shown you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God."
If we believe we know all there is to know about any of the subjects mentioned by this passage(especially the last) that attitude, in and of itself, will render real humility in walking with God well nigh impossible. And without genuine humility before the incomprehensible magnitude and quality of God, acting justly becomes a near impossibility and the love of mercy becomes absolutely impossible.
Think about it, buoys and gulls. Take these pieces and see in your own minds and hearts how they fit together. And now I'll have some questions for each and all of you.
1) Is it more possible to relate to God with genuine humility in an atmosphere of religious liberty--that is, where the responsibility of having a personal relationship with God is squarely on you and none other--or where one community of faith is, or a select group of such communities are, supported by the state? Do some of you see how the state actually gets in the way of such relationships, especially under cover of trying to facilitate them?
2) Will we be more aware of how much we don't know about God--indeed, of what we can't know about God as long as we live on Earth--under religious liberty or a religion established by law? Do or don't 'closed' systems promote closed minds?
What I believe we can know from Scripture (and to some extent from our own experience) is that God loves us all, enough to send His Son so that we might have the power to become sons and daughters of God (John 1:12, 3:16-17) So long as someone else's way to be close to God doesn't jeopardize our lives, liberties or property, let us proceed with care and ask more questions as opposed to laying down decrees. God is perfect, but none of us are and perfection is rarely, if ever, achieved in this world. Let's keep that in mind. This is why the 'images' we have of God need to be open-ended--so they can grow and change as each of us grows in the Spirit.

QUESTION FOR MUSLIMS

I have a question for any and all Muslims who might be inspecting this new blog. I notice that you chaps call yourselves soldiers, servants or slaves of Allah. In the beginning of the Gospel of John, (1:12) it says, "Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God....children....born of God."
Now, it seems to me that a faith which promises this is a definite step up from one where you refer to yourselves as slaves, servants or soldiers of your God. Or is this just a linguistic confusion? I need to say here, albeit with regret, that believing in Jesus as a Prophet doesn't quite cut it as 'believing in his name'. Yes, I know you believe in the Virgin Birth; well and good. I also know that the 2nd Sura in the Koran asks, "Does God need children?" I agree, He doesn't--but need ain't the point. God wants us as His sons and daughters; chew that over a while.
I don't care who roars and snarls and waves their swords and daggers at me. Nor do I care about anyone's religious senstivities being wounded by my honest questions. A robust faith welcomes honest challenges and questions; only a so-called faith already on the verge of collapse either resents and/or fears such challenges and so far as I'm concerned, any threats coming my way from this post just show the cowardice and weakness of those doing the threatening.
I will not desist because of threats, but I will at least try to answer honest questions and meet honest challenges.