Friday, 20 December 2013
He sees Islam as a religion of compassion and thinks the Koran should not be interpreted literally: his theories have made the Muslim theologian Mouhanad Khorchide many enemies. Now Islamic associations declaim against him, saying he is not suitable for the professorship.

He is "not tolerable" as an Islamic scholar, the relationship is "broken and irreparable", his theories are "dubious" - these are the hard words Muslims use to criticise the director of the Zentrum für Islamische Theologie (ZIT) [Centre for Islamic Theology] in Münster, Mouhanad Khorchide. The Muslim Coordination Council now demands a "new direction, in terms of personnel and subject matter" for the Institute, which trains teachers for Islamic religious instruction and religious scholars for mosques.

Khorchide is an advocate of a liberal interpretation of Islam. His most recent books are called "Islam is compassion" and "Sharia - the misunderstood God". He is critical of the Koran being interpreted literally, and campaigns for a friendly, open Islam, and has given lots of interviews on the subject. "The man with a sense of mission", as the portrait of him in the TAZ was titled.

According to its own statement, the Muslim Coordination Council has now "critically engaged with [Khorchide's] theology of compassion" and published an opinion about it. Verdict: the scholar's work does not meet scholarly standards and is not compatible with the "commitment to confessional Islamic theology". Organisations such as the Türkisch Islamische Union der Anstalt für Religion [Turkish Islamic Union of Religions Institutions], known as DITIB [tn: run by the Turkish government], have expressed themselves in a similar way, sometimes even more severely, for examples calling for "the appropriate authorities to initiate the appropriate steps in view of the findings." From the Islamic Council and Schura council, similar things were heard. In short: Khorchide should go.
Source: Der Spiegel Via: EuropeNews

This is hilarious. The introduction of this Islamic religious instruction was extremely controversial. But the politicians justified it by saying it would allow a more moderate "European" version of Islam to be cultivated and conveyed to young Muslims. Now the Muslim associations, dominated by the Turkish government, mobilise against the teaching in its current form because it's too moderate, European and close to Christianity!

Amusingly, his predecessor in this post also had to leave after he said that Mohammed had possibly never existed, received death threats from Muslims then decided he was no longer was one himself!



14 comments:

Bernard said...

The best idea is to just point all of them toward the desert and have them start walking. No form of Islam and its Bedouin followers are a fit for the west. Get out.

Anonymous said...

I just hope to see the end of this obscene madness. And maybe even witness the punishment of those, who are responsible for it - but ofc this is very unlikely.


Ot, have You seen this:

http://www.vice.com/read/the-child-rape-assembly-line-0000141-v20n11

Anonymous said...

english link doesnt work

http://www.vice.com/de/read/kindesmissbrauch-unter-ultra-orthodoxen-0000608-v9n11

Gisepe said...

As in the Catholic church, the evilry of pedophilia exists everywhere and among all people. Thanks for pointing this out. Also, thanks to Rabbi Rosenberg for doing something about it.

Anonymous said...

To Anonymous @17:04 and to Gisepe @ 18.16:

Thank you for the link to the article which deals with the sexual abuse of Jewish children by Rabbis in their communities. Gisepe: there is a fundamental difference between the paedophilia in the Catholic church (the abuse itself and the cover-up or failure to properly deal with it by the Catholic hierarchy) and the paedophilia by Jewish Rabbis: there is NO mandate, NO support, NO justification whatsoever in the New Testament for such immoral conduct (Jesus Christ specifically warns against anyone harming a child). The paedophilia by Catholic priests is in complete opposition to Christian morality and to the New Testament and this is especially why it is so abhorrent. The Babylonian Talmud, which is the principal text in training Rabbis and educating Jewish children in their 'faith schools' (yeshivas) does mandate specifically for sexual abuse of children by Jewish Rabbis and, previously, Jewish priests.

A male child, aged below nine years. was not regarded as sexually mature and and could not, therefore, either legally or morally, ascribe any 'guilt' to his abuser and the abuser was also, therefore, not 'guilty' of lying with another 'man' as is forbidden in the Old Testament. (Babylonian Talmud: Sanhedrin 69b, Sanhedrin 55a, Footnote 1 to Kathuboth 11b, Sanhedrin 55b) A female child, aged three years and one day, could be 'cohabitated' with (Sanhedrin 55b, Yebamoth 57b, Sanhedrin 69a, 69b, Yebamoth 60b; ffootnotes 3 & 4 to Sanhedrin 55a: "At nine years a male attains sexual matureness...The sexual matureness of woman is reached at the age of three."

Anonymous said...

The article to which Anonymous @ 17:04 linked is in German and details a familiar pattern in religious communities where such sexual abuse occurs: shock, disgust and yet a tendency for the 'community' to close ranks, refuse to query the origin of such sexual abuse, and antagonism shown to those who seek to expose such abuse (the rabbi who spoke out had acid thrown in his face by an unknown assailant and was blinded). There is no sense in protesting that this should be regarded as an immoral and arcane part of Judaic texts if those texts are still in circulation and the record of sexual abuse in such communities (generally orthodox) continues unabated, unchallenged, and its 'theological' or textual origins not acknowledged and condemned. In this respect, both Judaism and Islam stand in stark contrast to Christianity and Christ's condemnation of any who would harm a child.

On a note about the manner in which the 'counter-jihad' deals with paedophilia: Most people who know of Islam, know of Mohamed's conduct and of the many Hadiths recording his 'marriage' to six-year old Aisha, and the 'consummation' of that marriage when she was nine years old (he was in his fifties), and that such conduct serves as an authorisation in Islam for child abuse/child marriage. (The Koran also mandates for, by implication, pre-pubescent marriage in Sura 4 when speaking of divorce of wives not yet menstruating). When speaking of the time in which Mohamed lived (7th century), cjers will mention that 'child marriage' was not 'uncommon' at that time, yet carefully avoid mentioning which group of people had textual approval for such abuse.

Anonymous said...

Still a better love story than Twilight...

Anonymous said...

Really? Strange then that the Rabbi was shocked by it. Guess he missed those lessons in rabinical training.

Also, in ancient times a young girl was betrothed in order to protect her legally from being raped as she matured. The penalty for raping a married female was death. The little girl had no sexual relations with her future husband in the sense you are speaking of. You are applying Islam to Judaism. The Talmud is not holy scripture btw.

Anonymous said...

In all cases, the Talmud specifies that a woman can be acquired for marriage only with her consent, and not without it. Kiddushin 2a-b. Kind of hard for a 3 year-old to give consent there. Additionally, sex is permissible only within the context of a marriage.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous, 21:24 You are clutching at straws that don't even exist:-

"Since the marriage had taken place, she is regarded as a married woman and it is assumed that she is no more a virgin." Sanhedrin 55 Footnote 4: "If they had sexual intercourse before they were three years and one day old the hymen would grow again, and they would be virgins." "When a grown-up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing, for when the girl is less than this, - it is as if one puts the finger into the eye, - but when a small boy has intercourse with a grown-up woman he makes her as a "girl who is injured by a piece of wood". Footnote 7 to this: "i.e., tears come to the eye again and again, so does virginity come back to the little girl under three years." Footnote 1: "Although the intercourse of a small boy is not regarded as a sexual act, nonetheless the woman is injured by it as by a piece of wood." The Talmud is a central text of Judaic laws and practice; attempting to ignore it or deny its relevance is similar to dismissing the Hadiths in Islam which, along with the Koran, form the basis of its Sharia (way or path). These views in both ideologies do help to explain the basis for the sexual abuse which, as the above linked article makes clear, it still prevalent all these centuries later; the point is that, because they are in these core texts, the ideology's adherents find it difficult, impossible or threatening to deal with its moral repugnance.

Anonymous said...

You are a damned liar. Here are two links giving Jewish law on marriage and sex. Let everyone read it themselves. You are getting your material from stormfront and david puke.

http://www.jewfaq.org/m/marriage.htm
http://www.jewfaq.org/sex.htm

Anonymous said...

To Anonymous @ 23:10 I have quoted from the Soncino English Babylonian Talmud which includes along with the Tractates, notes, glossaries and indices as well as Introductions to each Tractate by fully accredited Rabbis including the Chief Rabbi of Israel. This is Halakah, Jewish law, and it may be read online in English. As with the Koran, Hadiths and Sira, these are translations into English by religious or theological scholars in the field.

The above linked article in German from another commenter was not reporting on a singular instance of paedophilia by rabbis; these texts clearly lie behind the sexual abuse of children and accusing others of lying because we take note of them is exactly how Moslems react over manifold abuses in Islam being made known to the wider, Western public.

Anonymous said...

The accuracy is there, the relevance not so much. Satmar's abuse their own kids, they are not trying to convert anyone into their disgusting ways nor abuse anyone else's children, in stark contrast to many other religious and secular sects and break-away movements.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous @ 10:44. Sexual abuse, especially against children, is wrong whether it is committed 'in the community' and/or with religious textual support, under the statutes of law in the civilised Western world. Also, as the Talmud deals with females as slaves, captives and 'proselytes' (those to be converted to Judaism), and these practices/laws have been in effect for millenia, there were undoubtedly many more thousands of victims of it than 'merely' those born into the 'community'. The relevance, of which you are too dismissive, is that which leads to abuse, injustice and a denial of facts.

Search

Loading...

Blog Archive

Powered by Blogger.

Blog Archive

Total Pageviews