Pope enrages muslim world, inspires death threats by suggesting Islam not peaceful [Archive]

View Full Version : Pope enrages muslim world, inspires death threats by suggesting Islam not peaceful

Don Corleone

09-15-2006, 18:20

Hmm, imagine that. The Pope gives a speech where he explicitly states that holy war, be it a crusade or a jihad.... religious violence of any kind is incompatible with the nature of God. As part of the speech, he offers a quote from a dialogue between a 14th century Byzantine Emperor and a Persian scholar, in which Manuel II Paleologus states that the only thing Islam has brought to the world that is unique is jihad, which is unholy.

Now I can understand hurt feelings and strongly worded disagreement. But the reaction to the Pope's speech has lost all bounds of reason. Muslims rioting against implication that they're violent... (http://http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/09/15/pope.islam/index.html)

Among other incidents include a bombing at a Greek Orthodox church (and if anybody has had it in for the Papacy through the centuries, it would be the Greek Orthodox church).

So, basically, if you want to start a riot, suggest that Muslims are violent? :dizzy2: Doesn't that make the statement true?

I can understand the argument that Pope was painting with a broad brush, but surely the Pakistani National Assembly and the Supreme Imam of Turkey have bigger things to worry about then what the aging, ignored leader of a failing religion that is having secular legal issues in most of the countries it operates in has to say about them... If they really wanted to show Pope Benedict XVI how irrelevant he truly is, they should have ignored him, or quietly rebuffed his comments as the insane ramblings of a man out of touch. Surely the Muslim world is imbuing him with an importance that simply isn't there any more.

Silver Rusher

09-15-2006, 18:23

https://img205.imageshack.us/img205/2779/ironyatitsbest3vh.jpg

lancelot

09-15-2006, 18:28

This is sooo sooo funny!! The only thing funnier than people rioting over anger at Islam being called violent is that the idiots obviously fail to see the irony in that! :laugh4: :laugh4:

Thank you Islam...you have cheered up my day...

Seriously, it does make you wonder about the general IQ of some people...

@Don
I couldnt get that link to work...might be me though...

Keba

09-15-2006, 18:28

lancelot

09-15-2006, 18:29

Although, there's a lesson to be learned here ... the next time someone calls you aggressive, punch his lights out.:2thumbsup:

LOL!...well said.

Leet Eriksson

09-15-2006, 18:32

https://img205.imageshack.us/img205/2779/ironyatitsbest3vh.jpg

that image is fake.

As always the entire ordeal is as stupid as jyllands-posten debacle. But thanks to the pope friday attendance at mosques has increased now :2thumbsup:

GoreBag

09-15-2006, 18:33

https://img205.imageshack.us/img205/2779/ironyatitsbest3vh.jpg

This guy MUST have a wicked sense of humour.

yesdachi

09-15-2006, 18:45

Muslims rioting against implication that they're violent...

While wiping blood from an infidel’s beheading off his hands what? I don’t get it? :blank:

Leet Eriksson

09-15-2006, 18:53

Muslims rioting against implication that they're violent...

While wiping blood from an infidel’s beheading off his hands what? I don’t get it? :blank:

what?

oh snap, i have to clean my cleaver and hide that infidels head i recently beheaded

Can't you people think for 5 minutes not every muslim is a maniac that beheads people?

Don Corleone

09-15-2006, 18:58

what?

oh snap, i have to clean my cleaver and hide that infidels head i recently beheaded

Can't you people think for 5 minutes not every muslim is a maniac that beheads people?

I can and do. But rioting because some over-the-hill head of a religion that even it's 'dedicated followers' don't really listen to is not the way to prove how calm and rational the average muslim is.

My apologies to anyone offended by my original description of the Pope. He's not one of my favorite people, and promoting Cardinal Law has done nothing to endear him to me.

Vladimir

09-15-2006, 18:58

what?

oh snap, i have to clean my cleaver and hide that infidels head i recently beheaded

Can't you people think for 5 minutes not every muslim is a maniac that beheads people?

Can't you think for 5 minutes that they're not calling every muslim a maniac. :juggle2:

Silver Rusher

09-15-2006, 19:06

I can and do. But rioting because some over-the-hill head of a religion that even it's 'dedicated followers' don't really listen to is not the way to prove how calm and rational the average muslim is.
I saw this post before you edited it. And believe me, those comments put you far, far below the level of the Pope. I shan't utter those words here though.

Samurai Waki

09-15-2006, 19:06

The next time the Pope talks about Islam, I strongly suggest that he Proclaim himself God-King of the Sea People and that if anyone makes threats against the Holy Sanctity of his established position, then he'll send out his Corsairs to deal with the problem... the sad part is, is while the rest of the World would think he is crazy, Islamicists might believe him.

Blodrast

09-15-2006, 19:08

And that is religion for you ...

Does it really surprise anyone by now?

Although, there's a lesson to be learned here ... the next time someone calls you violent, punch his lights out.:2thumbsup: That'll teach him not to spread lies about you ...

eh.... broad sweeping generalizations again...
That's NOT religion. That's fanatics, fundamentalists, zealots. Quite a difference.

Pindar

09-15-2006, 19:09

"(X and Y) have bigger things to worry about then what the aging, ignored leader of a failing religion..."

"I can and do. But rioting because some over-the-hill head of a religion that even it's 'dedicated followers' don't really listen to is not the way to prove how calm and rational the average muslim is."

My apologies to anyone offended by my original description of the Pope. He's not one of my favorite people, and promoting Cardinal Law has done nothing to endear him to me.

I don't understand the hostility here.

Kanamori

09-15-2006, 19:10

One incident of some being violent is not evidence of all muslims always being violent. Then again, depending on your definition of muslim, it certainly shows that some of them cannot be peaceful, denying the contrary statement that muslims are peaceful.

Don Corleone

09-15-2006, 19:17

I don't understand the hostility here.

I have a big issue with the way the Catholic Church has borrowed a few tricks from Cosa Nostra on how to keep the whole buggery scandal quiet, and freaks like Geoghan and Shanley out in the field. One of the primary defenders of the pervs was Cardinal Bernard Law, who, as somebody that's dedicated their lives to the legal system, you should resent more than I. If Cardinal Law was anybody else then the figurehead of Catholicism in Boston, he would have been thrown in jail on numerous counts of obstruction of justice, witness tampering, extortion, bribery and numerous other felonies. Instead, he got recalled to Rome, where his old buddy Ratzenberger (aka Benedict XVI) saw to it that he was named Pastor in Residence of the Basillica of St. Mary Major. This represented if anything a promotion within the Vatican, as he was now stationed permanently within the Vatican and was able to maintain his title as Cardinal.

Hostility? Hundreds of molested children that Law pimped out to his priests. It's the reason I became a Methodist.

lancelot

09-15-2006, 19:23

eh.... broad sweeping generalizations again...
That's NOT religion. That's fanatics, fundamentalists, zealots. Quite a difference.

Oh come on...when a riot usually takes place it can very well be a large proportion of the average citizens that get stirred up, it certainly doesnt have to be the fanatics and what not...so did all the zealots and fanatics club together especially for this riot?

caravel

09-15-2006, 19:24

that image is fake.

As always the entire ordeal is as stupid as jyllands-posten debacle. But thanks to the pope friday attendance at mosques has increased now :2thumbsup:

The image is indeed fake. The real message was: "behead those who insult islam". This was part of the london demonstrations against the Jyllands-Posten cartoons.

lancelot

09-15-2006, 19:26

The real message was: "behead those who insult islam".

Oh thats much better then...

...no wait, hang on a minute...

checking...

checking...

Nope- still sick and wrong

Pindar

09-15-2006, 19:28

I have a big issue with the way the Catholic Church has borrowed a few tricks from Cosa Nostra on how to keep the whole buggery scandal quiet, and freaks like Geoghan and Shanley out in the field. One of the primary defenders of the pervs was Cardinal Bernard Law, who, as somebody that's dedicated their lives to the legal system, you should resent more than I. If Cardinal Law was anybody else then the figurehead of Catholicism in Boston, he would have been thrown in jail on numerous counts of obstruction of justice, witness tampering, extortion, bribery and numerous other felonies. Instead, he got recalled to Rome, where his old buddy Ratzenberger (aka Benedict XVI) saw to it that he was named Pastor in Residence of the Basillica of St. Mary Major. This represented if anything a promotion within the Vatican, as he was now stationed permanently within the Vatican and was able to maintain his title as Cardinal.

Hostility? Hundreds of molested children that Law pimped out to his priests. It's the reason I became a Methodist.

I see. So the Pope is ignored and over-the-hill and Catholicism itself is a failing religion because of the evils done by some Priests in the U.S.? Hmmm.

Leet Eriksson

09-15-2006, 19:34

I can and do. But rioting because some over-the-hill head of a religion that even it's 'dedicated followers' don't really listen to is not the way to prove how calm and rational the average muslim is.

My apologies to anyone offended by my original description of the Pope. He's not one of my favorite people, and promoting Cardinal Law has done nothing to endear him to me.

The thing is, every protest is now called a riot when the protestors are muslims?

Besides the bombing of an orthodox church carried by a few fanatics, what makes you think that these protests are what an average muslim thinks?

GoreBag

09-15-2006, 19:37

Smart move by the Pope. Muslim hypocrisy has never been so blatantly obvious.

Haha, what, the pope personally gains through this reaction?

"Yes...good..."

Don Corleone

09-15-2006, 19:39

The evils I speak of are not those done by Shanley and Geoghan themselves. The evil of pedophilia appears everywhere.... with parents, physicians, Rabbis, ministers, teachers, scout leaders... anybody who has access to children. The only thing that makes the Roman Catholic Church unique in this regard is that while everyone else tries their damndest to root the pedophiles out and bar their access to children, the entire organization, including those at the highest levels, dedicate themselves to using whatever means necessary, including threats of excommunication, to silence the accusers and move the violators into new and fertile hunting grounds. In that, they are so far away from their mission, their very existence makes me question the existence of God.

But you asked me why the vitriol, not why I think they are a failing religion.

Go to any of the traditional strongholds of the Roman Catholic faith: France, Italy, Southern Germany, Ireland, East Coast USA, Austria, etc. Less than 20% attendance, and less than 5% by people under 40. Does that sound like a thriving, prospering religion to you? They've had to pay out so much in monetary settlements that they're selling church property and closing parishes across the Northeast USA, traditionally their richest dioceses. The only place they still have a following is in third world countries, and it's been shown that as nations improve their standards of living (Brazil, Argentina) people either move to Protestant faiths or quit Christianity all together.

The Roman Catholic Church itself will tell you if you press hard enough that they are an Aristocracy. The term 'princes of the church' bestowed upon Cardinals is not slang, it's a title. They view themselves as nobility and the rest of us are peasants. It's an outdated, out of touch institution that is going under (and not quickly enough in my book).

I am a devout Christian, but frankly, somedays I have to wonder if I'm not just believing wives tales when the Lord of Hosts allows men such as Law to blaspheme in His name and excommunicate children to silence them.

Don Corleone

09-15-2006, 19:40

The thing is, every protest is now called a riot when the protestors are muslims?

Besides the bombing of an orthodox church carried by a few fanatics, what makes you think that these protests are what an average muslim thinks?

Burning the Pope in effigy and letting off a bomb at an Eastern Orthodox community center in Gaza are hardly peaceful protesting.

Silver Rusher

09-15-2006, 19:40

The image is indeed fake. The real message was: "behead those who insult islam". This was part of the london demonstrations against the Jyllands-Posten cartoons.
Of course it is. You just need to have a look at the V to see how worse-than-photoshopped it is. But I posted the pic because it seemed appropriate.

Anyway. The Pope says Islam is violent because of the actions of a few terrorists. Don Corleone says Catholicism is about buggery because of the actions of a few American priests. Can you see a difference? I can. The difference is that the PC society allows people to insult catholics and get away scot-free whereas insulting Islam not only brings you to burning embassies, violent protests and even more terrorist attacks but also gets you shot down by others who are not Muslim.

(and DC, don't try to defend it with untrue spouts of 'I never said that'; as I said before, I saw what you posted before the edit. :inquisitive: Oh, and I may have said I will never utter those words here but you continued with the subject of buggery anyway so I might as well)

GoreBag

09-15-2006, 19:41

No, but the Muslim Extremists--perhaps the entire Muslim Community--loses face by this rioutous and (to be honest) laughable reaction.

Whatever you say. I sincerely doubt that it affects anything real and tangible, even if they have 'lost face'. We all know that they were reactionaries anyway.

Leet Eriksson

09-15-2006, 19:43

Burning the Pope in effigy and letting off a bomb at an Eastern Orthodox community center in Gaza are hardly peaceful protesting.

1 incident, the bombing of a church, somewhere in someplace we don't know carried out by a minority group.

Hardly represents most of the protests. And burning effigy's was done since what the 1980's? thats hardly an incident were anyone would feel insulted.

Keba

09-15-2006, 19:45

Don Corleone

09-15-2006, 19:47

SilverRusher, my issue is not with the buggery itself. Sadly, that shows up everywhere, and yes, you're right, it was a few American priests.

My issue is much deeper... the hypocricy and the sheer evil of an organization that would threaten children with excommunication for going to the police with their stories. Before you go defending the bigwigs of the Church and how it was only a couple of priests, you really ought to go do some research into how many times offending priests have been reassigned. Go read about the Navajo mission in Northwestern New Mexico. Read about Shanley joining NAFTA, and Law telling him not that his desires were evil, but that he ought not to be so public about them.

I did say some nasty things about Ratzinger, and I hold to them. I edited them not because I don't stand behind them, but because I don't think I need to offend practicing Catholics in this dialogue, and I'll pick one, maybe two boogeymen per thread (and Ratzingers Nazi ties are yet another thread).

whyidie

09-15-2006, 19:49

I see. So the Pope is ignored and over-the-hill and Catholicism itself is a failing religion because of the evils done by some Priests in the U.S.? Hmmm.

To a certain extent, his edicts are ignored. The evils done by the priests and the extent that the church went to cover up those evils has certaintly hurt the religion to the point that one could reasonably say that it has fallen in stature and influence.

Ronin

09-15-2006, 20:10

Muslims react with violent threats in protest of a sugestion they are not peacefull.....

Pro-life christians kill doctors......

It´s these little ironies that make religion almost worth having around....

....don´t be shocked!...I said almost!:laugh4:

Pindar

09-15-2006, 20:14

The only thing that makes the Roman Catholic Church unique in this regard is that while everyone else tries their damndest to root the pedophiles out and bar their access to children, the entire organization, including those at the highest levels, dedicate themselves to using whatever means necessary, including threats of excommunication, to silence the accusers and move the violators into new and fertile hunting grounds.

Entire organization? Don, does this seem a sustainable position to you?

But you asked me why the vitriol, not why I think they are a failing religion.

I asked about your hostility and quoted you regarding the Pope and Catholicism as a failing religion.

Go to any of the traditional strongholds of the Roman Catholic faith: France, Italy, Southern Germany, Ireland, East Coast USA, Austria, etc. Less than 20% attendance, and less than 5% by people under 40. Does that sound like a thriving, prospering religion to you?

The loss of devotion in Western Europe is not exclusive to Catholicism. The same is the case in Traditional Protestant Europe.

I am a devout Christian, but frankly, somedays I have to wonder if I'm not just believing wives tales when the Lord of Hosts allows men such as Law to blaspheme in His name and excommunicate children to silence them.

Evil predates the acts of clerical pederasts and those who cover for them. I think your hostility is blinding you to a great religious tradition full of good people. You are a good guy and shouldn't give in to such.

Don Corleone

09-15-2006, 20:21

If you want to continue to discuss this, Pindar, that's fine, but we should start another thread. I promise to limit my critcisms of the Catholic Church in this one for now. I don't view my views as blinkered, however, as I have Cardinal Law's promotion in light of his abuses to support my case, but again, this belongs in another thread.

As for Leet's point that one man's protesting becomes rioting where muslims are involved.... here you may have a point. In actually digging through to find examples of violent behavior in response to the Pope's speech, I am coming up rather shorthanded. It seems to be more hints of violence and threats of violence then violence itself. You're right that burning people in effigy is fairly harmless and shouldn't be construed as real violence. Perhaps what really sets us apart is a cultural difference... protests in the Middle East simply tend to be more lively then in Europe or the USA. :shrug:

Husar

09-15-2006, 20:21

I did say some nasty things about Ratzinger, and I hold to them. I edited them not because I don't stand behind them, but because I don't think I need to offend practicing Catholics in this dialogue, and I'll pick one, maybe two boogeymen per thread (and Ratzingers Nazi ties are yet another thread).
Well, I don't like the pope or the catholic church either, but the point about ratzinger being a Nazi is pretty weird since he was a kid back then, raised under Nazi doctrine with no other perspective given.

On topic I think that it's usually the bad guys who make a company, group or religion look bad.

A Laden blows up two towers -> all muslims are terrorist breeders
A Bush calls for crusade -> all christians are warmongering idiots
A Putin wants an empire -> all Russians are evil imperialist commies
A Hitler starts WW2 -> all Germans are evil Nazis who murder jews in their spare time

Maybe some monkeysphere phenomenon in that we take the actions of a famous person as example for the actions and thoughts of all of his or her "followers"(or who we think are his followers), especially if we have some previous prejudice anyway.

Reenk Roink

09-15-2006, 20:29

What some people obviously aren't seeing is the demographics of these rioters/threat makers/whatever.

One, it's small.

Two, they come from a select population.

Consider where Leet...fiz comes from. The UAE. A religious place, though rich (better per-person income than here I believe), prosperous, educated. Is that the source of much tussle?

Remember the India riots over the Da Vinci Code? Not much in rioting at home though...

There's a point to all of this. Essentially, poor people, perhaps oppressed in some way, are most prone to extremism. The fact just happens to be that the Muslim world has more of these places than the Christian world.

Do also recall, that Soundgarden (:rockstar:) recieved numerous death threats for their song "Jesus Christ Pose", which actually criticizes Perry and other rockstars for imitating Jesus on stage. They hadn't blown up yet either, this predated the Seattle explosion.

By the way, here are some responses from high level Muslim leaders around the world. They certainly don't tow the line with the impression of the first post/title...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5348436.stm

In the name of our Palestinian people... we express our condemnation of the statements of his Excellency the Pope, against Islam as a belief, sharia, history, and a lifestyle.

Ooh..."his Excellency"...tactful...

Our hands are outstretched and our religion calls for peace, not for war, for love not for hatred, for tolerance, not for fanaticism, for knowing each other and not for disavowing each other.

We condemn this and we want to know the explanation of this and what is intended by this. We call on the pope, the pontiff, to apologise to the Islamic nation because he has insulted its religion and Prophet, its faith and Sharia without any justification.

Damn, and I thought he was going to call for a beheading... :rolleyes:

He should really know better than quoting a 14th Century Christian emperor who was a political man who made his statements for a political reason... I do not know why people choose to quote things out of context when you have clear instructions in Islam which says no forced conversion. Why do we need a Christian emperor to tell us what Islam is?

Ooh, pretty intelligent refutation...

Pindar

09-15-2006, 20:32

Leet Eriksson

09-15-2006, 20:33

...

Thank you so much Reenk.

:2thumbsup:

Lemur

09-15-2006, 20:43

Yes, you're right, it was a few American priests.
Am I missing something here? The pedophile priest problem has not been confined to the borders of the U.S.A., not by a long shot. I don't have time to dig up a pile of original links, but here's a summary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_sex_abuse_cases):

One of the worst examples of a clergyman using his links with families to facilitate the abuse of children occurred in Ireland, where one priest ² systematically raped and sexually abused hundreds of boys between 1945 and 1990. The scandal over the Fr. Brendan Smyth case, and the systematic obstruction of justice in his case by the Norbertine Order caused immense damage to the credibility of the Catholic church in Ireland, as did other cases, such as that of Fr. Jim Grennan, a parish priest, who abused children as they prepared for First Communion, and Fr. Sean Fortune, who committed suicide before his trial for the rape of children. The abuse by Grennan and others in the Diocese of Ferns in south-east Ireland led to the resignation of the local bishop, Brendan Comiskey, while similar scandals in the Archdiocese of Dublin severely damaged the reputation of its archbishop, Cardinal Connell. Although there were other social factors at play, some have argued that the ten-year drop in the percentage of Irish people attending weekly Mass (from 63% to 48%) was related to these events.

Blodrast

09-15-2006, 20:44

Well, technically, the Pope didn't say Islam was violent ... he merely quoted Manuel II, and that guy said it. That's if you feel like nitpicking.

@Bloodrast: That post wasn't intended to be serious ... I thought that the lesson learned bit would make that obvious.

Oh, okay, I didn't catch the sarcasm - sorry, my humor-meter is probably having a slow day :)
No probs, anyway :)

Don Corleone

09-15-2006, 20:51

Blodrast

09-15-2006, 21:01

[QUOTE=Lemur]Am I missing something here? The pedophile priest problem has not been confined to the borders of the U.S.A., not by a long shot. I don't have time to dig up a pile of original links, but [\QUOTE]

I'm going to chalk this one up to you and I being on different wavelengths. Allow me to correct my original statement: a few priests here and there. As with pedophiles in all walks of life, it's a relatively small number of priests that have actually engaged in the behavior. It's because pedophiles are so prodigious in their activities that even one or two can rack up such a large body count. This is true of pedophiles at all levels. The uniqueness of the situation of the Catholic church is the protection level. If you're a rabbi or a lutheran minister and you get caught doing these things, they strip you of your ecclesiastical authority and hand you in to the secular authorities. The Catholic Church seems to be content to 1) move you to another parish where you're unknown 2) payoff those victims and witnesses that will take money to keep quiet and 3) proceed to threaten those that didn't take the money in #2 with excommunication (which, for those non-Catholics out there, to a believer is a fate worse than death, as your immortal soul is in immediate jeoprady of Hell and you cannot receive the sacrament of reconciliation, it's supposed to be reserved for heresy and other acts against the Church at large, not for shutting up molested children).

Hmm, this may again be a discussion for another thread, but I'll go ahead and ask in this one anyway. Don, I can understand your frustration with the institution (although I don't necessarily agree with your view that if there are a few rotten fruits in the orchard, the entire thing is bad). But why did you change your beliefs, rather than just stop going to church, and remain a Catholic ? I mean, believing whatever Catholicism preaches should not be changed in any way by what the institution does or does not. In my opinion, of course.

I'm asking out of curiosity, I'm not pointing fingers or anything of the kind, and I hope you don't take it that way. I'm specifying this, because I know it's hard to get tone and implications from an Internet board post...

Apologies if I'm derailing this thread, and, if you want, of course we can save this for another thread or something similar.

Lemur

09-15-2006, 21:03

I'm going to chalk this one up to you and I being on different wavelengths.
Hey, I wasn't trying to misrepresent your position, and I'm sorry if I did. It was one of those moments when you read something, say to yourself, "Is he saying what I think he's saying?" and post a little more backround info. Please have patience with the lemur when he misunderstands you. It's not meant maliciously.

Don Corleone

09-15-2006, 21:06

I didn't take it that way. It was more a sigh of frustration at the misunderstanding itself then defensive posturing. I would think it goes without saying that the pedophilia crisis looms over the entire world. The reason it appears to be so prevalent in the US is we actually air our dirty laundry. I in no way meant to imply that I believed it was a uniquely American Catholic affair, nor did I take offense with you Lemur when you read my phrase a little too literally. The fault, if any, is mine for sloppy lanaguage. :bow:

Sasaki Kojiro

09-15-2006, 21:21

...

Great post. That pretty much sums it up.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

09-15-2006, 22:22

You know, it occurs to me that what Benedict did to Law was move him out of his own little Empire back to the Vatican where he can't do very much damage. Its the sort of move you make when you want to de-fany someone without causing too many waves within your own institution.

Xiahou

09-16-2006, 00:13

Goofball

09-16-2006, 00:27

Don Corleone

09-16-2006, 01:11

Oops, substitute NAMBLA for NAFTA, sorry about that. :oops:

KukriKhan

09-16-2006, 02:40

Crazed Rabbit

09-16-2006, 02:46

I believe the Pope has to declare he is speaking ex cathedra, and that it has to be about certain matters only. So I'm going to say no, if I didn't get mixed up about your question.

Crazed Rabbit

Xiahou

09-16-2006, 02:49

Any org theologians know if Poppy Benny's lecture qualifies as an ex cathedra pronouncement?

If not, it's just one man's opinion.

But if so, it obligates the world's catholics to some kind of active affirmation.

Either way, Sunday's sermons this week ought to be interesting.
No, I dont think it was. Besides, his point "Conversion by violence is not of God" is pretty tough to disagree with either way. Him quoting a long dead emperor while making that point doesnt make for some sort of Church proclamation against Islam.

The Spartan (Returns)

09-16-2006, 03:57

well his holiness should have knew what was coming..

Patriarch of Constantinople

09-16-2006, 07:12

Among other incidents include a bombing at a Greek Orthodox church (and if anybody has had it in for the Papacy through the centuries, it would be the Greek Orthodox church).

That is'nt a good way to try to prove you arent a violent religion ("We are not violent!" "in other news another muslim bombing....")

IrishArmenian

09-16-2006, 07:56

Why bomb an Orthodox church because the Pope said something. I thot the enemy of my enemy is my friend, not the guy I will hurt because I am angry.
Talk about being dumb.

Strike For The South

09-16-2006, 08:27

Yes lets just insult eachother. What does anyone gain in this? Nothing this in no way furthers any relations with anyone. Why the pope would say this is utterly beyond me. Ethier find peace or fight to the death. Im sick of the enemoures egos when it comes to ismlaomfacism on both sides.

Samurai Waki

09-16-2006, 08:33

Well I refuse to fight for any religion... if Pope McPopeHat wants a Crusade I won't be joining.

Banquo's Ghost

09-16-2006, 09:12

Any org theologians know if Poppy Benny's lecture qualifies as an ex cathedra pronouncement?.

No, it was simply a lecture.

I know that the Backroom contains people who like to pursue knowledge, and those that prefer to rant.

In the spirit of the former, I post a link to the Holy Father's actual speech (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/15_09_06_pope.pdf). It was an intelligent reflection on the nature of God as reason, something that has exercised us here on occasion. He quoted Emperor Manuel II Paleologus from the text written by the emperor, recounting a debate with a Persian.

In essence, His Holiness was arguing for the belief that the biblical God is the fount of reason and that violence to promote faith is both unreasonable and doomed to failure. He noted that this was a position that Mohammed (p.b.u.h.) took originally, but then changed to support violent spread of the faith in his later years. The philosophical essence of Allah was that His word was absolute (even the interlocutor reported was arguing that Allah was not even bound by his own word).

In essence, Pope Benedict was charting the journey that Christianity has taken from peaceful origins through violent conversions to reasoned co-existence and arguing that this last was more reflective of God as logos (in Greek, word or reason). In contrast, fundamentalism in both camps was ignoring reason in favour of emotional and practical violence, and thus a dialogue between reasoning people in both religions might bring understanding.

It is a thoughtful speech and one that bears reflection. How some Muslim leaders have stoked it up into:

The owner of those unfortunate and arrogant comments, Benedict XVI, has gone down in history, but in the same category as Hitler and Mussolini.

is rather beyond me, unless they believe that discussing the root causes of the evil that is perpetrated in Islam's name makes them feel vulnerable and on the defensive. The reaction rather proves the point that reason is becoming a scarce commodity in the face of the fundamentalist threat.

Pindar

09-16-2006, 09:57

It was an intelligent refection on the nature of God as reason, something that has exercised us here on occasion.

From what I've know of Benedict XVI he appears a thoughtful, perceptive mind.

Ignoramus

09-16-2006, 10:15

Look, Islam is a violent religion. The Koran implicity preaches hatered and jihad. And it's about time everyone woke up to that.

I can quote directly from the Koran to prove my point.

There are portions of the Koran that promote peace, but unfortunately they were written before the violent ones. And in the Koran, the later writings replace the older ones.

Samurai Waki

09-16-2006, 10:35

No Religion can promote violence, only religious people.

If you say the Koran has many quotes dealing with the Destruction of Non-Muslims, especially in the later part. I can Quote the Bible in many parts (Ironically both new and old testament) on the Destruction of non Jews-Christians.

Its how you interpret what a word means, not what a word implies.~;)

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

09-16-2006, 12:25

Except that in the Bible the Gospels always take precedence over everything else.

As to violent religions, have you ever heard of Thugi?

I don't think Islam is inherently evil but I do think a militant aspect was built into it from the first. This was probably done to allow Muslims a way of defending themselves without breaking with their God, but it unfortunately gives ammunition to the fundamentalists.

Did anyone see Sleeper Cell when it was on? That program dealt with this very issue, quite well for fiction, I thought.

cegorach

09-16-2006, 13:05

No Religion can promote violence, only religious people

:inquisitive: :inquisitive:

Which means that non-religious people should spread a religion ?:inquisitive: :dizzy2:

Sorry, these kind of people are religious FANATICS - you have non-religious fanatics as well.

It is not the fact that you are religious, but the fact that you go too far with some ideas religious or atheist.:book:

macsen rufus

09-16-2006, 13:21

Meh!

Retitle the thread to "Muslims take offence at the Pope quoting an Emperor speaking whilst currently besieged by the armies of Islam"

Now, I think I've probably established that I'm not a right-wing Christian Conservative survivalist fruitbat by now, but I do feel this is a case of looking for something to be offended by, having read the speech for myself. A serious case of someone telling someone else something about something he'd heard of, til eventually it reaches the illiterate peasants who then have to be appeased by the educated spokesmen that really ought to know better (Pakistani parliament springs to mind here...)

Bear in mind that Popes USED to say: "Hey, guys, let's put together the biggest army Europe's ever seen and romp around killing Muslims until we have taken back Jerusalem". Now THAT would be offensive to Islam, but to suggest that the Byzantine emperor whose empire was about to be destroyed may have had some negative feelings towards his military enemy is hardly offensive, but speaking the historic truth.

lancelot

09-16-2006, 13:35

No Religion can promote violence, only religious people.

Thats all very philosophically nice and all that but I dont think it has much bearing in the real world.

The 'big three' religions clearly inspired people (or promoted if you like) to violence...does not Islamic law say you are perfectly entitled to take non believers as slaves?...how is that not the religion promoting a certain course of action?

And even if it is the people who are violent, the religion can/does & is prompting them to do it.

Major Robert Dump

09-16-2006, 14:06

If a reporter axes the Pope if he is sorry, he should respond "does mohammed wear a funny hat?"

Dutch_guy

09-16-2006, 14:47

Pope apologizes for remarks on Islam (http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/09/16/pope.html)

This is the article,

Pope Benedict XVI is "extremely upset" that Muslims have been offended by some of his words in a recent speech in Germany, the Vatican said Saturday.

Firebombs scorched the wall of this Greek Orthodox church in Nablus. (Majdi Mohammed/Associated Press) Firebombs scorched the wall of this Greek Orthodox church in Nablus. (Majdi Mohammed/Associated Press)

On Tuesday, the Pope quoted a Medieval text that referred to the Prophet Muhammad's contribution to religion, remarks made by 14th-century Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus.

"The emperor comes to speak about the issue of jihad, holy war," the Pope said. "He said, I quote, 'Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.'"

The pontiff quoted Manuel's argument that spreading the faith through violence is unreasonable, adding: "Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul."

Since Benedict's speech at the University of Regensburg, in Bavaria, Germany, there has been growing outrage from Muslim leaders around the world.

In the West Bank city of Nablus, two churches — one Greek Orthodox and the other Anglican — were hit by firebombs Saturday morning. A group claiming responsibility said it was protesting against what many Muslims view as disparaging remarks about their religion.

Newspapers in many Muslim countries have carried editorials denouncing the controversial reference. Pakistan's Nawa-i-Waqt newspaper said the Pope "should not get involved in such provocation without reason."

Vatican spokesman says Pope 'very sorry'

The new Vatican secretary of state, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, said the Pope's position on Islam is unmistakably in line with Vatican teaching that the Church "esteems Muslims, who adore the only God."

"The Holy Father is very sorry that some passages of his speech may have sounded offensive to the sensibilities of Muslim believers," the statement said.

Some of the strongest denunciations over the remarks came from Turkey, where Benedict is scheduled to travel in November. Turkey's ruling party likened the Pope to Hitler and Mussolini and accused him of reviving the mentality of the Crusades.

Salih Kapusuz, deputy leader of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's Islamic-rooted party, said Pope Benedict's remarks were either "the result of pitiful ignorance" about Islam and its prophet or, worse, a deliberate distortion.

With files from the Associated Press

:balloon2:

macsen rufus

09-16-2006, 15:27

two churches — one Greek Orthodox and the other Anglican — were hit by firebombs

"the result of pitiful ignorance" ..... or, worse, a deliberate distortion

Pot, kettle, anybody?

kataphraktoi

09-16-2006, 15:31

How does Christianity actually inspire violence???

If you were reading from the words of Christ alone, you must require a pretty warped mind to interpret violence from his words...it may not be a case of inspiration, but a case of a person's own predisposition imposed over a religious context and presented as religious truth which is the case with many things that happened when the Church used "un-Christian" violence.

"Love thy neighbour" = Only those who are Christians spared from violence?

"Love those who despise you" = I'm sure that means retaliate with a Crusade...no doubt

"Turn the other cheek" - uncover the Kalashnikov beneath your jacket flap and blast the infidel to hell

"My commandment to you: Love each other" - Death to infidels

"I leave you my peace" - Impose an inquisition, force Jews to convert, burn all heretics on the stake

How could I be wrong, Jesus might be a Zealot/Sicarii warlord after all...gah!!

I just wish people understood that tolerance also means tolerance of remarks that might offend. I mean look, the Dome of Rock in Jerusalem has a sentence written in Arabic which disparages the Christian belief in the Trinity. Fair enough, its their opinion, their religion says God is unitarian, not trinitarian. I'm not going to protest or burn anything down. IN fact, the VAST majority of Muslims did NOT burn anything DOWN so I think that means most Muslims just let it slip by and are not funding some assassination of Pope Benedict. We notice how the leaders of Muslim countries condemn the Pope, but how many of them are democratic countries which represent the whim and thoughts of their own people?

Yes, those extremists are dumb animals. Thats why they are extremists, they are dumb, ignorant and easily led by equally dumb, ignorant religious leaders bent on their own personal power base and not for the spiritual benefit of their flock.

Geoffrey S

09-16-2006, 15:40

Ser Clegane

09-16-2006, 15:52

detractors choose to take one comment entirely out of context, and a comment that in fact is explicitely referred to as a quote.
In this context it should be noted that one of the vocal protestors, he head of the Ministry of Religious Affairs in Ankara, Ali Bardakoglu, in the meantime adimitted that he did not even read the whole speech, but just reacted to hearsay... :rolleyes:

Patriarch of Constantinople

09-16-2006, 16:21

Pot, kettle, anybody?

Why are they bombing my religions churches!

Its not like the Greeks agreed with the pope.

Still some who follow Islam (and those who are terrorists) actually believe that if they walk into a building strapped with an IED, blow the building up and kill innocents, that they would be rewarded with 70 some odd virgins.

Patriarch of Constantinople

09-16-2006, 16:23

Reenk Roink

09-16-2006, 16:38

It is a thoughtful speech and one that bears reflection. How some Muslim leaders have stoked it up into:

The owner of those unfortunate and arrogant comments, Benedict XVI, has gone down in history, but in the same category as Hitler and Mussolini.

is rather beyond me, unless they believe that discussing the root causes of the evil that is perpetrated in Islam's name makes them feel vulnerable and on the defensive. The reaction rather proves the point that reason is becoming a scarce commodity in the face of the fundamentalist threat.

You see Banquo's Ghost this is one leader, and just looking at his title, he is a political leader. Do check post #39 (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1243385&postcount=39) (hmm, they have removed some of the quotes from yesterday, and updated them with new ones).

In fact, I believe that the responses from many Muslim leaders have been quite intelligent. What better way to respond then to question why the Pope would be using a 14th century Byzantine emperor, as an authority on the theological complexities of the jihad and Muhammad's relation to it?

Another question brought up is, if this is a speech directed mainly at Christians, of the apparent contradiction between "faith" and war, why use an example from Islam? Wouldn't the Pope be better off taking examples from the Crusades? At least use both. It certainly would be more relevant.

I think the real beef that Muslims are having with this, is the Pope's tacit support for Manuel II's statements. Before he goes on to quote him, he lauds him as "erudite". There is an implicit agreement by the Pope with the statements as well.

As for the "violent" reaction, it just reinforces my personal view that it is common for many to have an easier time generalizing Islam and Muslims. I had to do some deep searches for examples of this "violent" reaction, and I got two incidents against churches (non-Catholic ones :rolleyes:) involving Molotov cocktails ("bombings") causing superficial damage to the exterior of the buildings. Besides that, there was the sparing burning effigy, and then the common peaceful-protest for apology. The incidents we can classify as "violent" were also in the Palestinian territories, an environment which solidifies my view of the perfect extremism breeding ground: poor + some form of oppression.

King Henry V

09-16-2006, 16:44

I would hardly call Islam the most peaceful of religions, on the basis that immediately after the founder of the religion, the Muslims immediately began a campaign of conquests to build an empire that would stretch from the Pyrenees to the Indus.

Why are they bombing my religions churches!
I hardly think that idiots like these make much distinction between one denomination and another: to them they are all infidels. (Please note: by idiots I mean the ones who bombed the Anglican and Orthodox Churches in Palestine)

I am disappointed that the Pope had apoligised: he has nothing to apologise for.

Silver Rusher

09-16-2006, 16:51

Banquo's Ghost, cheers for posting the entire speech. I had read it, and I'm glad someone actually posted it in this topic. It's a shame that from a well-written and balanced speech detractors choose to take one comment entirely out of context, and a comment that in fact is explicitely referred to as a quote. If muslims wish to be taken seriously, perhaps they should take such speeches seriously and not merely offer a blinkered take on what is in fact a well-reasoned take on religion. In the end, the reaction to the speech shows exactly why the reasoned thinking promoted in the speech is necessary.
I agree.

The point that the Pope makes, and I think it is a very valid point, is that conversion through violence is wrong and incompatible with God's nature. He simply uses Mohammed as an example of somebody who converted people to his religion using violence. This is historical fact and should not be confused with opinion.

I hear people making the argument of how the Catholic church was also responsible for atrocities throughout history. This argument reeks of ignorance. This has nothing to do with the Pope's point, which was far from "Islam is a violent religion" or "Islam has a violent past" which is how many seem to interpret it. He simply used Mohammed as a historical example to prove his point, and quite rightly so for I cannot think of any aspect of Christian history that would have fit into the argument better than Mohammed's example.

Everyone, read that lecture. You will learn a valuable lesson.

And finally, thank you very much BQ. While I doubt it will slice through the ignorance associated with the lecture as effectively as I would have hoped, at least now people can read the argument and realise exactly what the Pope meant.

EDIT: Ah, the ignorance seems to have stacked already.

Another question brought up is, if this is a speech directed mainly at Christians, of the apparent contradiction between "faith" and war, why use an example from Islam? Wouldn't the Pope be better off taking examples from the Crusades? At least use both. It certainly would be more relevant.
The point isn't about Christianity, it is about the nature of God and how people should be converted. Mohammed converted more people through violence than any other, so why not use his example? The Baltic Crusades converted people by the sword, yes, but small numbers of people and not using Mohammed's example works far more effectively as an argument.

Um i think we're talking about Roman Catholicism. They WERE and maybe are violent (best example: the crusades).
See above.

King Henry V

09-16-2006, 16:52

Another question brought up is, if this is a speech directed mainly at Christians, of the apparent contradiction between "faith" and war, why use an example from Islam? Wouldn't the Pope be better off taking examples from the Crusades? At least use both. It certainly would be more relevant.

Well Islam did come up with the concept originally.

I think the real beef that Muslims are having with this, is the Pope's tacit support for Manuel II's statements. Before he goes on to quote him, he lauds him as "erudite". There is an implicit agreement by the Pope with the statements as well.

Manuel II was an extremely cultured and learned ruler. Accoridng to wiki, "Manuel II was the author of numerous works of varied character, including letters, poems, a Saints's Life, treatises on theology and rhetoric."

The Spartan (Returns)

09-16-2006, 16:54

i dont get why they would kill his holiness and compare him to Hitler!

Ser Clegane

09-16-2006, 16:56

I am disappointed that the Pope had apoligised: he has nothing to apologise for.
I disagree - he did the right thing. He regretted the that his speech has been interpreted in a way that was not in line with the original intent.
AFAIK, he did not retract anything, but rather said that he is hoping that people will understand the true meaning of what he said.

Banquo's Ghost

09-16-2006, 17:01

You see Banquo's Ghost this is one leader, and just looking at his title, he is a political leader. Do check post #39 (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1243385&postcount=39) (hmm, they have removed some of the quotes from yesterday, and updated them with new ones).

There is a whole horde of quotes available. That one was just a peach.

In fact, I believe that the responses from many Muslim leaders have been quite intelligent. What better way to respond then to question why the Pope would be using a 14th century Byzantine emperor, as an authority on the theological complexities of the jihad and Muhammad's relation to it?

He didn't. Read the speech.

Another question brought up is, if this is a speech directed mainly at Christians, of the apparent contradiction between "faith" and war, why use an example from Islam? Wouldn't the Pope be better off taking examples from the Crusades? At least use both. It certainly would be more relevant.

Because the biggest problem with religion facing us today is the unwillingness of mainstream Muslims to clamp down on jihadists and fundamentalists. Whilst examining the lessons of the Crusades is a worthwhile academic exercise in self-flagellation, Muslim extremism is killing people right now. The inability of Muslim leaders to accept this, preferring instead to inflame violent feelings by this kind of over-reaction (one gets the impression that swathes of them were just waiting for the Pope to make any remark that could remotely be interpreted as anti-Muslim and had their 'anger' ready prepared) means that once again, debate on this real issue is being stifled by 'outrage' - where are the riots against the suicide bombers, the comparison of jihadists to Hitler? Why should we be taking lectures from the likes of Pervez Musharraf on freedom of speech?

I think the real beef that Muslims are having with this, is the Pope's tacit support for Manuel II's statements. Before he goes on to quote him, he lauds him as "erudite". There is an implicit agreement by the Pope with the statements as well.

I'm hardly anti-muslim, but I agree with the essence of what was being said by Manuel too. He was facing a violent attack by religious zealots, and in that context, his arguments have force. Why did Mohammed (p.b.u.h.) suddenly drop the idea of non-violent conversion to urge conversion by the sword? These are important points to examine, because we have Islamic theologians telling us that Islam is a peaceful religion, but it's fine to bomb infidels into powder.

As for the "violent" reaction, it just reinforces my personal view that it is common for many to have an easier time generalizing Islam and Muslims. I had to do some deep searches for examples of this "violent" reaction, and I got two incidents against churches (non-Catholic ones :rolleyes:) involving Molotov cocktails ("bombings") causing superficial damage to the exterior of the buildings. Besides that, there was the sparing burning effigy, and then the common peaceful-protest for apology. The incidents we can classify as "violent" were also in the Palestinian territories, an environment which solidifies my view of the perfect extremism breeding ground: poor + some form of oppression.

The reaction seems to be limited so far, which is good. But the rabble-rousing over such a small thing will have increased anger amongst many in the Muslim world. They have much to get angry over, but not this. And this kind of reaction has another effect - people such as myself, who try to have an understanding of muslim issues, get very angry ourselves over their inability to seek understanding and dialogue without screaming 'victim.' I have found myself today thinking untypically 'Fragony-esque' thoughts because of the stupidity of the muslim leaders' reaction. That's sad.

The Holy Father has apologised, with more humility than I would muster. Muslims need to accept this, and shut the heck up.

edyzmedieval

09-16-2006, 17:05

Ooh..."his Excellency"...tactful...

Damn, and I thought he was going to call for a beheading... :rolleyes:

Riot. :laugh4:
Stupidness at its height right from our beloved Pope. Idiotic. :no:

King Henry V

09-16-2006, 17:12

I disagree - he did the right thing. He regretted the that his speech has been interpreted in a way that was not in line with the original intent.
AFAIK, he did not retract anything, but rather said that he is hoping that people will understand the true meaning of what he said.
What I mean is that I think what he said was right. It is not his fault that some people have grossly overeacted.

Silver Rusher

09-16-2006, 17:19

Riot. :laugh4:
Stupidness at its height right from our beloved Pope. Idiotic. :no:
Have you read the lecture? If you have I am extremely surprised that you would say something like this.

King Henry V

09-16-2006, 17:24

Riot. :laugh4:
Stupidness at its height right from our beloved Pope. Idiotic. :no:
What because he quotes an Emperor from one of your beloved empires?

edyzmedieval

09-16-2006, 17:25

Silver Rusher

09-16-2006, 17:40

Ah, I must have misinterpreted what you said.

From the point of view of 'this will enrage the Muslim world', yes I suppose it was a bit of an idiotic thing to say. But he makes a valid point nonetheless.

AmbrosiusAurelianus

09-16-2006, 17:52

I am a devout Christian, but frankly, somedays I have to wonder if I'm not just believing wives tales when the Lord of Hosts allows men such as Law to blaspheme in His name and excommunicate children to silence them.

I am (devout) too, but He has to give us free will, remember? ~:)

In that, they are so far away from their mission, their very existence makes me question the existence of God.

Funny, the fact that people can get it so wrong convinces me that there must be one right way, and it's that that makes me religious. Don't give up on the big guy, DC.

As for the Pope's statements, I largely agree with him. It's the first time I've ever agreed with him, so it shocked me for an entirely different reason to most people!

The Wizard

09-16-2006, 18:40

Loved how old Benedictus ripped Manuel II's statements right out of context and pasted them out over the headlines like a frickin' Art class. From the mouth of an angry Emperor of Rome who had been reduced to the obedient hound of the Ottoman in Edirne, who had seen what had become of the Roman cities of Asia Minor by his time, and who was too proud to admit that the blame lay squarely on the shoulders of his predecessors, comes a comment which the Pope apparently thought was perfectly usable for a commentary on the religion of Islam.

With such ignorance (his own and those of the Muslim mobs), what can he expect but anger and riots? Manuel II's words belong in the past, and even then they were wrong. The Pontiff should have let them rest in their shallow grave.

Red Peasant

09-16-2006, 18:41

There are people out there determined to stir up trouble, and it ain't the Pope (much as I dislike him and his Church). If this dull speech had been made in the pre-internet era then nobody would ever have heard of it. But now, any Tom, Dick, and Mischief-Maker can cause a hell of a lot of trouble, whipping up ignorant fanaticism, and the touchiest loonies of them all just happen to be Muslim. *shrug*

L'Impresario

09-16-2006, 18:56

Manuel II is actually considered one of the "good" emperors of the late Byzantine empire. It's pretty ironic that he was very friendly towards the west but even though he bought quite some time for his state, in the end the papal squabbles of the time led the West's attention away from affairs in the east. So an apology from the Pope to Manuel for letting him down is necessary now, more than ever, methinks:P

Reenk Roink

09-16-2006, 19:41

The point isn't about Christianity, it is about the nature of God and how people should be converted. Mohammed converted more people through violence than any other, so why not use his example? The Baltic Crusades converted people by the sword, yes, but small numbers of people and not using Mohammed's example works far more effectively as an argument.

So you are saying that Muhammad "converted...people through violence"?

How? Do you claim that he put swords to people's necks and said: "Convert or die"?

How then would you explain his conquest of Mecca (a Pagan city), where he granted amnesty to the Pagans? Muhammad was able to conquer much of the Hijaz and have control of Arabia (though only nominally Eastern Arabia) by the time he died.

I would agree that Muhammad was a military man, both a soldier and a general (along with other things). I would agree that he conquered places. That he commanded, and fought in raids. I completely agree that the reason for his fighting was his religion. I completely disagree that he "converted people through violence".

Others agree with me:

A. S. Tritton in 'Islam,' 1951

The picture of the Muslim soldier advancing with a sword in one hand and the Qur'an in the other is quite false.

De Lacy O'Leary in 'Islam at the Crossroads,' London, 1923.

History makes it clear, however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myths that historians have ever repeated.

Mahatma Gandhi, statement published in 'Young India,'1924.

I wanted to know the best of the life of one who holds today an undisputed sway over the hearts of millions of mankind.... I became more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet the scrupulous regard for pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every obstacle. When I closed the second volume (of the Prophet's biography), I was sorry there was not more for me to read of that great life.

James Michener in ‘Islam: The Misunderstood Religion,’ Reader’s Digest, May 1955, pp. 68-70.

"No other religion in history spread so rapidly as Islam. The West has widely believed that this surge of religion was made possible by the sword. But no modern scholar accepts this idea, and the Qur’an is explicit in the support of the freedom of conscience."

Now, can we make the claim that his followers "converted people with violence"? Again I would say (barring the sparing incidents here and there) no.

They certainly conquered land as was the norm. They fought offensive wars with other empires as was the norm. But why is it, that the places conquered by Muslims in the mid 7th century, did not have a majority Muslim population until 2 centuries afterwards? Why is it that the Ummayad Dynasty actually discouraged conversion to Islam to collect the tax, and because people were still converting, to make sure they would get taxes, they continued to tax the converts to Islam?

Well Islam did come up with the concept originally.

Of what? "Holy War"? One can look as far back to the Old Testament for wars fought in God's name.

There is a whole horde of quotes available. That one was just a peach.

Precisely.

Anyway, from the many quotes I've read, most call for a condemnation/apology from the Pope. Many question the Pope's knowledge of Islam. Many disagree with Manuel II's view on Islam, and seek to clarify/refute it with intelligent comments. Not much rabble-rousing here. Of course, my earlier point of the ease of generalizations concerning Muslims/Islam is further supported. Just like in the cartoon crisis, it was "radical Imam's" (note: not "some radical Imams") that caused it to explode. Well, certainly that leaves out many of the Imams who actually stepped into the crowds and tried to push the crowds back... :juggle2:

Now, you have a government official, from a country that the Pope hasn't been so nice to (don't let Turkey join EU) that compares him to two notorious fascists. Gah! Guess he's been taking cues from the Bush administration of far left anti-Bush people. You have a Taliban spokesman trying to put a "crusade" spin on it joining up with Israel/America. Wow, that can't be related to any political occurrence. :rolleyes:

He didn't. Read the speech.

Banquo's Ghost, of course I read the speech. :wink:

Certainly I agree with you, the Pope's theme was not to deal with complexities of jihad, but he used this quote, quite offensive I might add.

I don't want to get into the relationship of reason and religious faith (I personally hold that faith is irrational [note: unlike many here, I am not holding "irrational" in a negative connotation; in fact, I personally am more inclined to belief in a God than to disbelief. I am just saying that reason is not the best method to use in faith of God] although I understand that there are quite good arguments within rational theology and reformed epistemology that contradict my view).

I also do not want to get into the Pope's assertion on whether religious faith is compatible with war or not (personally, at least concerning the Old Testament and Quran [which covers our big three] I believe that it is linked in some way).

But the speech was offensive. Quoting a vitriolic part of Mein Kampf to support another unrelated theme you are making is still offensive. You may not think so, but then our view on this issue are irrevocable.

Because the biggest problem with religion facing us today is the unwillingness of mainstream Muslims to clamp down on jihadists and fundamentalists. Whilst examining the lessons of the Crusades is a worthwhile academic exercise in self-flagellation, Muslim extremism is killing people right now. The inability of Muslim leaders to accept this, preferring instead to inflame violent feelings by this kind of over-reaction (one gets the impression that swathes of them were just waiting for the Pope to make any remark that could remotely be interpreted as anti-Muslim and had their 'anger' ready prepared) means that once again, debate on this real issue is being stifled by 'outrage' - where are the riots against the suicide bombers, the comparison of jihadists to Hitler? Why should we be taking lectures from the likes of Pervez Musharraf on freedom of speech?

I'll leave it to the Muslims to elaborate on how insulting remarks about Muhammad hurt them personally.

Anyway, what on earth is this talk of "unwillingness of mainstream Muslims to clamp down on jihadists" talk? How would they go about doing this? Should the average Muslim on the street go up to a guy with a suicide vest and say "hey buddy, I'm going to clamp down on you today!"? I've also heard many a comment on the Org about the "silence of mainstream Muslims" to condemn terrorism. I get a thought of a guy wearing earplugs and having people all around him scream and shout while he rants on about the "deafening silence".

For example, here was just some of the Muslim condemnation against 9/11 (http://www.beliefnet.com/story/111/story_11121_1.html) [REDUX (http://islam.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=islam&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.unc.edu%2F%257Ekurzman%2Fterror.htm)].

For every fatwa in support of terrorism (coming from the same select few), thousands of fatwas are made against it.

A moment of silence (no pun intended) in an Iranian soccer stadium, calls to donate blood in Qatar, condemnation from all kinds of groups, from the ultra-secular to guys only slightly less insane than al-Qaeda themselves... Damn the silence is just deafening... :rolleyes: (watch this smiley for about 20 seconds straight). But of course, the Muslim response to this is engraved in the minds of thousands (or more) as dancing in the streets.

Heck, in Jordan (the country with the highest support of bin Laden/suicide bombings in 2005) they protested against the Zarqawi bombings.

Now this statement is just odd: "The inability of Muslim leaders to accept this, preferring instead to inflame violent feelings by this kind of over-reaction".

Inflame violent feelings? Most call for an apology. Most also claim that contrary to the the Pope's quotes, Islam/Muhammad are not as Manuel claims. This is good. It's important that Muslim leaders tell their followers that Islam isn't violent. Makes it harder for bin Laden and crew...

“(His) betray a clear ignorance of Islam and attribute to the faith things which have nothing to do with it”.
Sheikh Mohammed Sayyed Tantawi
The head of Cairo's Al Azhar University

And here's a little something about the dialogue:

“(The pope's remarks) do nothing to further dialogue between world religions and civilizations.”
Sheikh Mohammed
Sunni Islam's top authority

He makes a good point.... :wink:

I'm hardly anti-muslim, but I agree with the essence of what was being said by Manuel too. He was facing a violent attack by religious zealots, and in that context, his arguments have force. Why did Mohammed (p.b.u.h.) suddenly drop the idea of non-violent conversion to urge conversion by the sword? These are important points to examine, because we have Islamic theologians telling us that Islam is a peaceful religion, but it's fine to bomb infidels into powder.

As for the Muhammad conversion by the sword, see above. I think I've sufficiently covered that. The fact is Banquo, the majority of the theologians, the highest authority theologians, actually don't say what you attribute. See the "thousand for one" comment.

By the way, the "religious zealots" comment, which I think you refer to the Ottomans as, is laughable. Certainly if the Byzantines were a strong military power at the time, they would be going for all those great cities... :wink:

Those rational Byzantines exemplifying all that is good and dandy vs. the evil scum. :laugh:

The reaction seems to be limited so far, which is good. But the rabble-rousing over such a small thing will have increased anger amongst many in the Muslim world. They have much to get angry over, but not this. And this kind of reaction has another effect - people such as myself, who try to have an understanding of muslim issues, get very angry ourselves over their inability to seek understanding and dialogue without screaming 'victim.' I have found myself today thinking untypically 'Fragony-esque' thoughts because of the stupidity of the muslim leaders' reaction. That's sad.

The reaction is:

Two churches (wrong ones :rolleyes:) hit by a couple of Molotov cocktails, both in Palestinian territories.

One to several effigies burned.

Peaceful protests.

Once again, I believe the generalizations made of the Imams as well as the Muslim population are very easy for us to make. It's apparent on this thread.

Thankfully, the Pope has made a brilliant compromise (not apologizing) but making it clear that he never meant to insult Islam, and also that he "esteems Islam (http://www.gulfnews.com/world/Vatican_City/10067927.html)".

Muslims need to accept this, and shut the heck up.

*Reenkmaestro read about Fred Phelps latest protest*

"Christians need to shut the heck up."

Exhausting, but I hope I've made my point...

Geoffrey S

09-16-2006, 20:20

I indeed have read it.

Why the heck would he say something like this? He knew very well that the Muslims are like Murphs law. They interpret it the worst possiblr case, and this is what happened.
So now one should keep in mind the sensibilities of those who will take something entirely out of context and run rampant with it? I'm sorry, but the line of not offending an ethnic group has to be drawn somewhere.

Perhaps the quote can be viewed as an attack on Islam, though it was (to me) clearly intended to contrast the use of violence to spread religion in general with the use of reason an dialogue; however, this has been acknowledged by Benedict and he has apologised for any offense that has resulted. But to take one phrase, a quote at that, and ignore the rest of a speech promoting reasonable thoughts, in favour of instigating an outrage among people who aren't even going to read the speech is extremely irresponsible.

Unfortunately, even usually reasonable media outlets are running this story on the terms of the papal detractors:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5352404.stm

The Wizard

09-16-2006, 20:28

It hardly matters how he chose to explain how he intended it to be recieved. What does matter is the fact that the Pope quoted a nice piece of the ignorance and hate that was the mark of the day of Manuel II, focusing especially on Islam. How did he think it was going to be interpreted?

But, then, yes... what alternative did he have on the subject on why rational dialogue wins out over violent religious reactionism but deist or atheist minds? So he had to rip out a piece of writing well over six hundred years old as a commentary on Islam. That is ignorance, as ignorant as is the reaction of the mobs that rage against what he said.

Banquo's Ghost

09-16-2006, 21:06

Exhausting, but I hope I've made my point...

As always, you argue well and with rigour.

I shall reflect on some of your points, but I do not find myself persuaded in this instance.

Nonetheless, thank you for a reasoned and thoughtful response.

:bow:

Silver Rusher

09-16-2006, 21:37

Reenk, that was a very long and compelling argument. You must be proud.

However, Mohammed himself did forcefully convert people, whether the Islamic Empire after him did or didn't. The Banu Qurayza are the best example of this. Your quotes say that most of the conversion wasn't done by the sword; sure, but some of it was. Not just that, but it is mostly referring to past Mohammed's life.

And what about this? It is from the Qu'ran:

"Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolators wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful."

OK, bad example. But my point stands.

Reenk Roink

09-16-2006, 22:10

However, Mohammed himself did forcefully convert people, whether the Islamic Empire after him did or didn't. The Banu Qurayza are the best example of this. Your quotes say that most of the conversion wasn't done by the sword; sure, but some of it was. Not just that, but it is mostly referring to past Mohammed's life.

The Banu Qurayza are not a good example Silver Rusher.

For one, Muhammad did not pass judgement on the fate of the Banu Qurayza, it was ibn Muadh. Muhammad had passed judgement for the Banu Qaynuqa and Banu Nadir, where they were exiled with their belongings.

The reason for why ibn Muadh judged as he did is up to debate. He said he made his choice due to the Torah. However, he was also wounded by an arrow in the seige.

And again, the judgement was to kill all warriors. It wasn't a "convert or die" thing.

lancelot

09-16-2006, 22:59

Reenk Roink

09-16-2006, 23:12

Things seem to be quieting down:

It is true that Catholicism over the centuries has had an uneasy relationship with Islam, as it has with Judaism and Protestantism. But in recent years, especially under the reign of John Paul II, the relations between the Vatican and the Muslim world have improved considerably through interfaith dialogue. It would indeed be unfortunate if Pope Benedict XVI's comments this week...signal a departure from his late predecessor's interfaith vision. Similarly, it would be unfortunate if the Muslim world over-reacts to this faux pas in a wave of emotion, or worse, as we saw with some of the responses to deeply offensive anti-Islamic cartoons earlier this year...

Perhaps the best response is for the Muslim world to rise above the occasion. Those who are calling for the cancellation of the Pope's visit to Turkey in November this year - his first official visit to a Muslim country - are simply misguided and wrong...In a post-9/11 world, the terminology of faith has unfortunately regressed on all sides.

We fully agree with religious affairs directorate chief, Ali Bardakoglu, that the remarks of the Pope were "extraordinarily worrying, saddening and unfortunate" and could offend any Muslim anywhere around the globe. But we just disagree with this vendetta-like approach of continuing to abuse the Pope after his spokesman made a statement saying that he respected Islam and did not intend to offend Muslims but just wanted to express his opposition to violence in religion...The example cited by the Pope was wrong, all right. But for God's sake, as rational people we must try to read in between the lines of the subsequent Vatican statement as well and realise how sorry the head of the Catholic Church is about the mess he created. We have more than sufficient tensions between cultures. We should try to avoid a new one.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

09-16-2006, 23:26

It occurs to me that there is another interpretation here. The Pope is taking an apropriate example of conquest and conversion, from 600 years ago. Therefore the Emperor's comments do not refer to any current religion, in the same way that the Crusades do not really reflect on Christianity

Whether people were actually converted by force early Muslims saw it as their duty to conquer, in order to rule and convert the world.

Given that for much of his life Manuel's people were besieged by Muslims and he was himself forced to take part in attacks on his own people while a hostage of a Turkish Sultan I think his viewpoint is justified.

Added to which, let me ask: What has Islam provided that is good and new?

Lemur

09-17-2006, 01:08

My favorite statement to come out of this whole affair:

"Anyone who describes Islam as a religion as intolerant encourages violence," - Pakistan Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam (http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2447600).

Priceless. It's heartening to know that idiocy is another human universal.

Duke of Gloucester

09-17-2006, 08:22

My view on this is that the Pope's quotation was very unwise because it was insulting, because it did not accurately describe Islam's notion of Jihad and because he could just as easily have made his point without the quotation. He is right to apologise, but unfortunately the dammage is done.

Reenk argues that almost all of the reaction in the Moslem world has sensible and proportional. From Moslem faith leaders and theologians, this might be true, but with many Moslems I am not so sure. My daughter was upset yesterday because our neighbours' children had told her: "We don't like your Pope so we don't like you." In Britain, relations between the Catholic church and Moslems have been pretty good, possibly because many of the things said about Islam were recently said about Catholicism:

it is a foreign religion
they seek to undermine our culture and convert the country to their religion
they support terrorists
their religious leaders do not condemn terrorists enough.

Now, those relations will take a knock.

Whilst I blame mainly Pope Benedict for his loose talk, and the leader of a world religion does have to be very careful about what he says, the controversy does through in to relief a problem I perceive with Islam: that it can't cope with criticism. It is all very well for Reenk to point out how offensive to Moslems criticism Mohammed is. Possibly we in the West don't understand, but you might expect Moslems to extend the same courtesy to other religious leaders. However, apparently it is OK for Salih Kapusuz to compare the Pope to Hitler. If Catholics had the same sensibilities some of us would be outside burning him in effigy.

Dâriûsh

09-17-2006, 09:28

Next time he better praise Osama Bin Laden. I mean, we wouldn't want the mob to firebomb more churches in Nablus.

:juggle2:

lancelot

09-17-2006, 09:51

Originally Posted by SAUDI ARAB NEWS
It is true that Catholicism over the centuries has had an uneasy relationship with Islam, as it has with Judaism and Protestantism. But in recent years, especially under the reign of John Paul II, the relations between the Vatican and the Muslim world have improved considerably through interfaith dialogue. It would indeed be unfortunate if Pope Benedict XVI's comments this week...signal a departure from his late predecessor's interfaith vision. Similarly, it would be unfortunate if the Muslim world over-reacts to this faux pas in a wave of emotion, or worse, as we saw with some of the responses to deeply offensive anti-Islamic cartoons earlier this year...

Perhaps the best response is for the Muslim world to rise above the occasion. Those who are calling for the cancellation of the Pope's visit to Turkey in November this year - his first official visit to a Muslim country - are simply misguided and wrong...In a post-9/11 world, the terminology of faith has unfortunately regressed on all sides.

Originally Posted by TURKEY'S DAILY NEWS
We fully agree with religious affairs directorate chief, Ali Bardakoglu, that the remarks of the Pope were "extraordinarily worrying, saddening and unfortunate" and could offend any Muslim anywhere around the globe. But we just disagree with this vendetta-like approach of continuing to abuse the Pope after his spokesman made a statement saying that he respected Islam and did not intend to offend Muslims but just wanted to express his opposition to violence in religion...The example cited by the Pope was wrong, all right. But for God's sake, as rational people we must try to read in between the lines of the subsequent Vatican statement as well and realise how sorry the head of the Catholic Church is about the mess he created. We have more than sufficient tensions between cultures. We should try to avoid a new one.

These seem like well reasoned intelligent responses.

"Anyone who describes Islam as a religion as intolerant encourages violence," - Pakistan Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam.

Im sure women around the world agree... :wall:

What a twit...

AntiochusIII

09-17-2006, 12:11

It's the Pakistani military government, lancelot; surely that would explain just about everything?

What bloody government would pass a chance to rile up its population in a classic "external enemy" situation? His Excellency, for all the erudite rhetoric and argumentation, had been very foolish to step onto this trap by the mere mentioning of Islam. It's really not that different from the flag-waving patriots-on-podiums we have over here called politicians. Didn't Rumsfeld basically said another day that anyone opposing the Administration's foreign policies are Nazi-appeasing monkeys?

That and crowds are, by some weird bending of the laws of humanity, dumb, ignorant, and painfully hard to reason with, be they Muslims or not. So it's no surprise there's a lot of protests-without-actual-knowledge going on.

caravel

09-17-2006, 13:13

As I understand it the Pope, not too subtly, quoted the words of the Byzantine Emperor Manual II Paleologos when he stated:

"Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

Good of the pope to bring that one up. He's great at ressurecting those timeless old quotes isn't he? They say the old ones are the best though.

It seems to me, yet again to be a gross overreaction to a quoted statement, by a minority of the somewhat overzealous, that always seem to end up on TV news carrying 'beheading' placards and screaming out various abusive rants. Not exactly the worlds islamic population as a whole though are they? A bit like those 'gentlemen' that posed for the 'pulling down of saddam statue' movie clip after the 'end' of the second Iraq invasion.

The, shall we say, 'excessive' demonstrations here are those of the minority fanatic, as usual. The outrage is that of the religious leaders and others, they're not all out burning their bedclothes wrapped around a broom handle as an effigy of el papa, while shooting a few hundred round from an AK47 in the general direction of god.

Regarding the "behead those who insult islam" photoshopped image. I pointed out it was fake and gave the true quote to see the reactions. As usual a few people came up with the, "is that any better?!" type response. Of course it's not any better. This type of lunatic (and coward) behind such messages should be arrested and kicked out of the UK. He's no good to this country and no good to muslims as a whole either. It is ridiculous to typcast all muslims as the same as this one individual. Yes there is an extremism issue, but ask yourselves who is it that has contributed in such a big way into gaining more supporters for such fanatics? Tranforming them from small groups of insignifcants into powerful organisations with political and military clout, coupled with international sympathisers and support.

KukriKhan

09-17-2006, 15:54

Patriarch of Constantinople

09-17-2006, 16:24

You know the pope really shouldnt have called Islam a violent religion. I hope he learned about THE CRUSADES, and read the Old Testament.

Duke Malcolm

09-17-2006, 16:51

You know the pope really shouldnt have called Islam a violent religion. I hope he learned about THE CRUSADES, and read the Old Testament.

Aagh! He didn't call Islam a violent religion! He quoted a long dead chap who did call Islam a violent religion. Since no news service (from those I have seen) gives the entire transcript of his speech, which happened to be on Holy Wars and such like. He did not say he agrees with the quote, or that there may be truth in it. When a cardinal explained this, people still complained. His Holiness didn't have anything to apologise for. Though I can't help but wonder if some dubious islamic clerics had a hand in creating this uproar just as they did with the cartoon affair...
I wonder if any muslim chaps shall apologise for the beseiging of countless christian (the majority of which were not catholic) churches after the affair.

Since it was a speech on Holy Wars, and since he is the chap in charge of the Catholic Church, I'm sure he has heard all about the Crusades, and the Old Testament. (and I might add that the majority of Christian teaching is from the New Testament, and New T. trumps Old T.)

Crazed Rabbit

09-17-2006, 17:28

You know the pope really shouldnt have called Islam a violent religion. I hope he learned about THE CRUSADES, and read the Old Testament.

Question; did the crusades come before or after Muslims armies rampaged up into France through Spain, and were trying to bring down the Byzantine empire?

Or do the actions of Charles Martel mean Catholicism is violent?

And, as Malcom pointed out, he did not call them violent. But they are proving, in large part, the truth of his words by their reactions.

A less out of context quote of the Pope's speech:
In the seventh conversation edited by Professor Khoury,
the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that
surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion". According to the experts,
this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and
under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and
recorded in the Qur'an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as
the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels",
he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about
the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what
Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and
inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached". The
emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the
reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable.
Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he
says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably (F×< 8`(T) is contrary to
God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to
faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and
threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons
of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...".

Crazed Rabbit

Ser Clegane

09-17-2006, 17:54

in large part

Why "in large part"?

Crazed Rabbit

09-17-2006, 18:16

By that I mean the reaction and sentiment against the Pope by a large part of Muslims.

Crazed Rabbit

Patriarch of Constantinople

09-17-2006, 18:44

Question; did the crusades come before or after Muslims armies rampaged up into France through Spain, and were trying to bring down the Byzantine empire?Crazed Rabbit

Did the muslims continue invading france after they lost it? Probably not.

The catholics, on the other hand, attacked the muslims in their "holy war" 9 times. Yes nine crusades all against one religion.

Ser Clegane

09-17-2006, 18:59

By that I mean the reaction and sentiment against the Pope by a large part of Muslims.
Hmm ... how do you know that the kneejerk-reactions represent a "large part of muslims"?

ajaxfetish

09-17-2006, 19:33

Did the muslims continue invading france after they lost it? Probably not.

The catholics, on the other hand, attacked the muslims in their "holy war" 9 times. Yes nine crusades all against one religion.
I think saying 'nine crusades all against one religion' is simplifying the situation a lot. The purpose of the crusades was not to destroy Islam, or to convert Muslims. Of course their were numerous reasons behind them, and different ones for different crusaders, but the central purpose was to take political control of Jerusalem (a city that had been Jewish and Christian before it was Muslim, and still with plenty of Jewish or Christian inhabitants), and to make it safe for Christian pilgrims. They were not attacks against a religion, but a fight over a piece of land.

And while the invasion of France ended in Carolingian times, the battering against the eastern bulwark of Christianity at Constantinople continued for centuries until it was finally reduced, and an invasion of Eastern Europe as far as Austria followed.

The point is, both Christians and Muslims practiced aggression on each other over their histories. I'd say the reasons were usually more political than religious, though religion often provided the fervor to carry them through.

Ajax

Navaros

09-17-2006, 19:34

Pope enrages muslim world, inspires death threats by suggesting Islam not peaceful

Maybe if there were not people in the world like the Pope who incite anti-Muslim hatred amongst billions of people via things like what he said in the speech, then Islam would be a lot more peaceful.

King Henry V

09-17-2006, 19:42

King Henry V

09-17-2006, 19:44

Conradus

09-17-2006, 19:45

Did the muslims continue invading france after they lost it? Probably not.

The catholics, on the other hand, attacked the muslims in their "holy war" 9 times. Yes nine crusades all against one religion.

The muslims still possessed a part of france in the 9-10th century
(Fraxinetum) and raided most of Burgundy in that period.
And they attacked the ERE for more then 700 years, yes 700 years against one religion...

Navaros

09-17-2006, 19:56

apparently it is OK for Salih Kapusuz to compare the Pope to Hitler.

Actually considering the fact that the Pope is a former Nazi and possibly now a closet-Nazi, that comparison is extremely apt.

AntiochusIII

09-17-2006, 20:11

The muslims still possessed a part of france in the 9-10th century
(Fraxinetum) and raided most of Burgundy in that period.
And they attacked the ERE for more then 700 years, yes 700 years against one religion...Confusing political expansions and the general warfare by ambitious warlords looking to get more powerful with genuine (and genuinely disturbing) Holy Wars isn't quite correct.

The Turks certainly weren't that religious-driven for trying to build an Empire upon the ruins of Byzantium as is being portrayed here, even for the average soldier.

Actually considering the fact that the Pope is a former Nazi and possibly now a closet-Nazi, that comparison is extremely apt.Why are you accepting that insult to God's vizier on Earth so easily just like that, hmm?

~;)

sharrukin

09-17-2006, 20:15

Did the muslims continue invading france after they lost it? Probably not.

The catholics, on the other hand, attacked the muslims in their "holy war" 9 times. Yes nine crusades all against one religion.

The Narbonnaise Saracens attacked Provence and the Rhone valley from 732 to 739. In 739, Pepin, soun of Charles Martel, and Liutprand, king of the Lombards, crushed the Saracens at Marseille and threw them out of Narbonne.

From the start of the 9th century there were numerous maritime attacks of Saracens from Spain and North Africa. The Carolingian states were too spread out to resist simultaneous attacks by Normands and Saracens. In 838 and 842 the Saracens raided Marseille. IN 842 and 850 they raided Arles. In 869 they established a base in the Camargue.

In 890 the Saracens founded a base in La Garde-Freinet (then called Fraxinet). In 972 they captured Saint Mayeul, Abbey of Cluny, on the road to Mont-Genèvre. By 990 the Saracen domination of Provence was over, although raids continued until the 13th century (Iles-de-Lérins [south of Cannes] in 1047, 11007, 1197; Toulon in 1178 and 1197).

By the year 906 Muslims crossed the Dauphine, crossing Mont. Cenis and made themselves masters of the Novalese Abbey which was situated in the Valley of Suse on the frontier of Piedmont. In 911, all the passes of Mount Alps between France and Italy were controlled by Muslims.

In 908 Muslim adventures came to the coast of the Longuedoc. In 920 Muslims crossed Pyrenees, laid waste a considerable part of Gascony right upto the gates of Toulouse.

Marseilles and Aix were invaded. In 935, they advanced upto Liguia. In 939, they conquered the district of Valais and Trantaine country fell on their feet and district of Valais and Trantaine country fell on their feet and in 940 Frejus, a port.

As well as Italy;

In 813 Muslims attacked Civi Vecchia in the neighbourhood of Rome.
Sicily was invaded by the Aghlabids between 827 and 878.
In 836 Brindisi was burned by Saracen pirates. In 840 the Arabs devastated the monastery of Subiaco. Also in In 840 the Longobard Radelchi, duke of Benevento, asked help to the Arabs to fight against the rival Siconolfo. The Arabs intervened and they took advantage for conquering Bari. In 845 the Arabs took possession of Capo Miseno, in the gulf of Naples, and of Ponza, to make of them bases in view of an attack against Rome. In 846 the Arabs ransacked Brindisi and conquered Taranto.

In 839 Ancona was devastated by the Saracens. Then from the Adriatic they moved back to the Tyrrhenian Sea and in the summer of 846 landed at Ostia. They sacked it, they burned it, and moving upriver from the mouth of the Tiber they reached Rome. They laid siege to it and one night they burst in. They plundered the basilicas of St. Peter and St. Paul, sacked both, and to get rid of them Pope Sergius II had to stipulate an annual tribute of twenty-five thousand pieces of silver. To prevent further attacks, his successor Leon IV had to erect the Leonine Walls.
849: Battle of Ostia: Aghlabid monarch Muhammad sends a fleet of ships from Sardinia to attack Rome. As the fleet prepares to land troops, the combination of a large storm and an alliance of Christian forces were able to destroy the Muslims ships.
In 856 the Arabs attacked and destroyed Canosa in Puglia.
In 861 the Arabs occupied Ascoli in Marche.
In 872 the emperor Ludovicus II freed Salerno from the siege of the Arabs.
876 Muslims pillage Campagna in Italy
In 890 the Arabic troops set the siege to the Abbey of Farfa, in Sabina. The Arabs made of Farfa their base in Sabina.
916: A combined force of Greek and German emperors and Italian city-states defeat Muslim invaders at Garigliano, putting Muslim raids in Italy to an end.

Did the muslims continue invading france after they lost it?
I think the answer to your question is YES!

Duke Malcolm

09-17-2006, 20:24

Maybe if there were not people in the world like the Pope who incite anti-Muslim hatred amongst billions of people via things like what he said in the speech, then Islam would be a lot more peaceful.

Dear Lord almighty, the Pope did not incite anything! He quoted a long dead byzantine emperor, in a speech about said emperor and holy wars!

In the seventh conversation edited by Professor Khoury,
the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that
surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion". According to the experts,
this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and
under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and
recorded in the Qur'an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as
the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels",
he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about
the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what
Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and
inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached". The
emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the
reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable.
Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he
says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably (F×< 8`(T) is contrary to
God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to
faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and
threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons
of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...".

I'm sure the billion or so Roman Catholics around the world did not particularly care, considering it is an academic speech in a University. I'm sure most Catholics can tell the difference between quoting something and stating something.

:wall: :wall: :wall:

Conradus

09-17-2006, 20:24

Confusing political expansions and the general warfare by ambitious warlords looking to get more powerful with genuine (and genuinely disturbing) Holy Wars isn't quite correct.

It was only to make a similar post as Hanniball99's post. The Crusades were also political expansian and ambitious noblemen of Europe seeking some part of the treasures of the East for themselves. So I don't know what Holy Wars actually could be referring to almost no wars in history have been fought only for religion.

AntiochusIII

09-17-2006, 20:29

It was only to make a similar post as Hanniball99's post. The Crusades were also political expansian and ambitious noblemen of Europe seeking some part of the treasures of the East for themselves. So I don't know what Holy Wars actually could be referring to almost no wars in history have been fought only for religion.Ah, I see. One could make the argument, though, that the average Christian Crusader certainly was religious-driven to some point, while, say, the Turkish army that stormed Constantinople wasn't as much so.

That's beating a dead horse, anyway. The "Crusades! Papal Hypocrisy!" isn't that compelling of an argument in the first place.

Navaros

09-17-2006, 20:31

Ice

09-17-2006, 20:37

Honestly, who cares. Do people actually still listen to the Pope?

The Wizard

09-17-2006, 20:38

Dear Lord almighty, the Pope did not incite anything! He quoted a long dead byzantine emperor, in a speech about said emperor and holy wars!

Explicitly focusing, therefore, all attention on Islam and its policies concerning conversion of non-Muslims. I don't really care jack about what the Pope intended to say; I care about the fact that he was quoting Manuel II while talking on the subject of Islam.

Using those words, ignorant both of the context of the words and of Islam itself, was a major mistake on the side of the Pope.

In your last post you raised an interesting, issue, however. Where did these mobs come from? I, too, wouldn't be surprised if these ill-educated and ignorant people have been mobilized by the clergy they so happily obey.

That's the problem within the Islamic world, the real problem: untold loads of ignorance, even towards their own religion, and a near bottomless trust in their clergy. Makes it quite the easy job for the Islamofascist imam.

Muhammad said it himself, in the hadith (or perhaps the sunnah): you must learn; you must grow. When ignorance sets in, that's when things go wrong.

Duke Malcolm

09-17-2006, 20:39

If the Pope was not trying to propagate the viewpoint of the quotee, then there would be no reason for him to have used that quote.

The only reason he is "sorry" now is because Muslims caught him.

I wonder if this new "Say horrible things, but say it's just a quote and everything is A-OK!" is just a fad or will become the defacto way to say horrible things without the speaker also having to take responsiblity for the words he speaks.

Aaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrgh! :wall: :wall: :wall:

There was plenty of reason for the Pope to quote the chap. It was entirely relevant to his speech on Holy War.
Auntie Provides... a brief summation of the speech and a link to the full speech viewable by Adobe Reader (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/5348456.stm)

He apologised because christian (including non-catholic) churches were being terrorised for it. I would imagine muslim outrage has more to do with anti-west spin by senior islamist fundamentalist chaps than the speech itself.

Ser Clegane

09-17-2006, 20:42

Actually considering the fact that the Pope is a former Nazi and possibly now a closet-Nazi, that comparison is extremely apt.

Maybe you should get your information from another source than "The Sun"...

Duke Malcolm

09-17-2006, 20:42

Using those words, ignorant both of the context of the words and of Islam itself, was a major mistake on the side of the Pope.

There is a point, but since the speech is essentially against Holy War, and Manuel II provides quotes for this, albeit the Pope did take select pieces out of context for the purpose of the speech.

The Wizard

09-17-2006, 20:51

Yet did the Pope know that the jihad that is so happily written about in Western circles is merely the lesser jihad, the least important struggle for God, insignificant to the inner battle to become a good Muslim -- the greater jihad?

And did the Pontiff know that this lesser jihad, which, as we have established, should be a secondary motive to a good Muslim, if any at all, is bound to extremely strict rules? Did he know that only men may be hurt and/or killed, that is to say punished, that women and children are inviolate, and only after they have been proven guilty of crimes may men be punished, and that therefore Islamofascists are in reality not followers of Muhammad and his God at all?

I daresay he doesn't.

Conradus

09-17-2006, 20:52

Ah, I see. One could make the argument, though, that the average Christian Crusader certainly was religious-driven to some point, while, say, the Turkish army that stormed Constantinople wasn't as much so.

That's beating a dead horse, anyway. The "Crusades! Papal Hypocrisy!" isn't that compelling of an argument in the first place.

You could also say that religion was the main purpose for the Peasants and Children's crusade, but most of the men at arms and knigths who joined the crusades were imo looking for wealth and a little land of their own. But as you said, we could go round and round and round.

Lemur

09-17-2006, 21:06

Pope apologizes for saying naughty things. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5353208.stm)

Pope sorry for offending Muslims

Pope Benedict XVI has apologised in person for causing offence to Muslims in a speech in Bavaria last week.

He said the medieval text which he quoted did not express in any way his personal opinion, adding the speech was an invitation to respectful dialogue.

Some Muslim leaders said his statement was sufficient to defuse the row, but others said it did not go far enough.

The 14th Century Christian emperor's quote said the Prophet Muhammad brought the world only evil and inhuman things.

The Pope has been under intense scrutiny amid angry reactions from throughout the Muslim world.

Reaction was mixed in Turkey, although Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul said the Pope's planned visit to the mainly Muslim country was still expected to go ahead in November.

Turkey's most senior Muslim religious figure, Ali Bardakoglu, welcomed the Pope's statement, and described his respect for Islam as a "civilised position".

But State Minister Mehmet Aydin said the pontiff appeared to be saying he was sorry for the outrage but not necessarily the remarks themselves.

"You either have to say this 'I'm sorry' in a proper way or not say it at all - are you sorry for saying such a thing or because of its consequences?" he said.

The Egyptian opposition group, the Muslim Brotherhood, welcomed what it called the Pope's "retraction", but later warned that it did not amount to a definitive apology and would not be enough to satisfy all Muslims.

In Germany, the Central Council of Muslims said the Pope had taken an important step towards calming the unrest of the past few days.

'Mutual respect'

Pope Benedict XVI issued his apology from the balcony at his residence at Castel Gandolfo outside Rome as gave the Angelus blessing.

"I am deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address at the University of Regensburg, which were considered offensive to the sensibility of Muslims," he told pilgrims.

"These in fact were a quotation from a medieval text, which do not in any way express my personal thought.

"I hope this serves to appease hearts and to clarify the true meaning of my address, which in its totality was and is an invitation to frank and sincere dialogue, with mutual respect."

Hours before the Pope spoke, two churches in the West Bank were attacked with firebombs in what was believed to be a reaction to the Bavaria speech.

In the Somali capital Mogadishu, an Italian nun was shot dead by gunmen. The shooting may have been connected to strong criticism of the speech by a radical Somali cleric.

And in Iran, hundreds of people gathered at rallies in major cities.

Conservative cleric Ahmad Khatami compared the pontiff to US President George W Bush, saying the two were "united in order to repeat the Crusades".

Protests

In his speech at Regensburg University on Tuesday, the German-born Pope quoted Emperor Manuel II Paleologos of the Orthodox Christian Byzantine Empire.

Stressing that they were not his own words, he quoted the emperor saying: "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

He also said violence was "incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul".

Reactions to the speech came from such leaders as Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, who said efforts to link Islam and terrorism should be clearly opposed.

Street protests were held in Pakistan, India, Turkey and Gaza.

KukriKhan

09-17-2006, 21:13

from Lemur's newsclip: "...Some Muslim leaders said his statement was sufficient to defuse the row, but others said it did not go far enough...."

He and GW should just proclaim conversion to Islam. So many problems solved then.

Crazed Rabbit

09-17-2006, 21:19

Actually considering the fact that the Pope is a former Nazi and possibly now a closet-Nazi, that comparison is extremely apt.

You display a great deal of ignorance about the Pope with this comment.

By the way, Navaros, are you Muslim?

Yet did the Pope know that the jihad that is so happily written about in Western circles is merely the lesser jihad, the least important struggle for God, insignificant to the inner battle to become a good Muslim -- the greater jihad?

Oh please. I'm sick of this "Jihad is just an inner struggle" crap.

And did the Pontiff know that this lesser jihad, which, as we have established, should be a secondary motive to a good Muslim, if any at all, is bound to extremely strict rules? Did he know that only men may be hurt and/or killed, that is to say punished, that women and children are inviolate, and only after they have been proven guilty of crimes may men be punished, and that therefore Islamofascists are in reality not followers of Muhammad and his God at all?

Judging from the actions of Muslim armies in the past and the actions of Mohammed himself, I extremely doubt the existence of any such rules, unless they apply only to Muslims.

Crazed Rabbit

The Wizard

09-17-2006, 21:34

Oh please. I'm sick of this "Jihad is just an inner struggle" crap.

It is. What you see on the news without having read the Qur'an yourself, or the sunnah, or the hadith, is fools that know nothing of what they say they fight for. They are abusing Islam, true Islam, for their own power plays, and they are abusing it via the ignorance and undereducation of the largest part of the Middle-East.

Judging from the actions of Muslim armies in the past and the actions of Mohammed himself, I extremely doubt the existence of any such rules, unless they apply only to Muslims.

Then perhaps you should read the hadith a time or two again. For instance, when Muhammad ordered the Banu Quranya (sp?) Jews executed, he only had the men executed, and of those only the warriors who had fought against him and killed some of his own warriors, IIRC. And, no -- these Jews weren't Muslims. ~:)

Reenk Roink

09-17-2006, 21:42

Judging from the actions of Muslim armies in the past and the actions of Mohammed himself, I extremely doubt the existence of any such rules, unless they apply only to Muslims.

Sigh...

Here is the most detailed thing I could find on the conduct of war: Gah (http://www.mereislam.info/articles/Defending-the-Transgressed_Shaykh-M-A-Al-Akiti.pdf)

Let's just look at the two times Muslims conquered Jerusalem, as the stories are well known.

637 AD: Umar conquers Jerusalem. No civilian (man, woman, child) is harmed. He is given the key to the city by Patriarch Sophronius, and invited to pray at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. He prayed some distance, so it would not be converted to a Mosque. 50 years later, a Mosque of Umar built on the site he first prayed.

1187 AD: Saladin conquers Jerusalem. No civilian (man, woman, child) is harmed. Saladin cleans the city with rosewater.

Navaros

09-17-2006, 21:50

Ser Clegane

09-17-2006, 21:56

You don't know too much about the HJ, do you, Navaros?

Geoffrey S

09-17-2006, 22:51

What strikes me (as a side issue) is the speed with which this story and the reaction to it, has spread.

-Speech/lecture delivered on Tuesday, 12 Sept.
-I read about it on Google news Wednesday, 13 Sept. (and I wonder what org backroomers will think of this).
-By Thursday, 14 Sept, parliaments are demanding apologies, and crowds are assembled to protest.
-Friday, 15 Sept, don corleone starts this thread. The Pope's PR guy explains his remarks, stopping short of an apology.

I mean, "angry muslim crowds" are assembled and photographed in less than 48 hours; entire governments are moved to pass condemnatory resolutions in less than 2 days... it's amazing how quickly negative reaction can be generated - and during a work-week.

Whereas, coming to the defense of his holiness, 5 days later, I read A. Merkel saying to Bild "he was misunderstood", and the Swiss FM saying "he was right".

For the West's supposed mastery of media manipulation, I gotta give first prize to the trans-national muslim "nation" for their ability to communicate, disseminate, and act on a story, with bonus points for their ability to mobilize large amounts of people in such a sort amount of time.
Which is an interesting issue; presumably a result of such a large portion of the population, far larger than that in the western world, regularly visiting their local preacher-man, thus allowing the organisation of such large mobs at a very high pace. I can only presume that such actions are generated by top-down information to the preachers, who moblise large crowds. This is easier in the concerned regions due to the mass preaching, unlike the west where the majority have access to so many sources of information that people (think they) make up their own mind and don't associate with a group in such an intensive fashion.

Kralizec

09-17-2006, 23:17

It is. What you see on the news without having read the Qur'an yourself, or the sunnah, or the hadith, is fools that know nothing of what they say they fight for. They are abusing Islam, true Islam, for their own power plays, and they are abusing it via the ignorance and undereducation of the largest part of the Middle-East.

I don't care much for what the "true interpretation" of the Qu'ran tells Allah's followers to do, the fact is that the mentality you and Reenk Roink have outlined is not the mentality of the majority of folks that inhabit the middle east and wich everyone, including themselves call "muslims".

What is "islam" anyway? Is it merely the (very narrow) correct interpretation of scripture? I say it is not. I say Islam, or any religion, is a sociological phenomenon that compells people to go to mosques, pray, affect every habit of their social life and wich also causes a tiny, crazed minority of them to bomb buses, behead people.

People say all the time that terrorists and their ilk are just fanatics who misinterpret their doctrine and who don't represent an entire religion. While this is certainly true these same people often take it to far and take this to mean that these people are somehow not "muslim" and that their actions have absolutely nothing to do with Islam, and nothing with the general mentality in the muslim world.

The Pope may have made a clumsy move with that particular part of the speech (though I don't think that he did so with malicious intent), but once again while the Muslim reaction has some justified cause it's gone WAY out of proportion.

Reenk Roink

09-17-2006, 23:42

I don't care much for what the "true interpretation" of the Qu'ran tells Allah's followers to do, the fact is that the mentality you and Reenk Roink have outlined is not the mentality of the majority of folks that inhabit the middle east and wich everyone, including themselves call "muslims".

Show your proof. More generalization. I highly doubt that a "majority of the folks that inhabit the middle east" have the mentality you attribute to them.

The Pope may have made a clumsy move with that particular part of the speech (though I don't think that he did so with malicious intent), but once again while the Muslim reaction has some justified cause it's gone WAY out of proportion.

I've outlined this and I'll say it again. The reaction, that you claim has "gone WAY out of proportion" is just untrue when it comes to the entire Muslim world or even the Middle East. Unless you call peaceful protesting with calls for apologies overboard.

I would agree that in the Palestinian territories, the reaction is way overboard (7 churches targeted with Molotov cocktails, suffering superficial damage). There is also the very sad case of the nun killed in Somalia.

However, I'll ask you to account for this: why hasn't this kind of reaction been seen in Kuwait, UAE, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Bahrain, Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Indonesia, Malaysia, etc?

India, Pakistan, Turkey, and Indonesia have seen some peaceful protests with thousands of people. In one case in India, an effigy was burned.

I've given an explanation for why certain areas (notably the Palestinian territories) are prone to extremism. You can read up on it in post #39 (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1243385&postcount=39).

I await your response...

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

09-17-2006, 23:59

Maybe if there were not people in the world like the Pope who incite anti-Muslim hatred amongst billions of people via things like what he said in the speech, then Islam would be a lot more peaceful.

False arguement. If I call you violent and you hit me who's fault is it.

I think many do not understand the quote in its proper context. As far as I can see it comes from a Hellenistic dialogue on the nature of religion. As such the quote is probably there, in those words, to provoke the appropriate response. What was the Persian's response? What did he hold up as being new in Islam and good?

Crazed Rabbit

09-18-2006, 00:03

Ah, two posters attacking the statement of the Pope being a former Nazi, I suppose because it is "inconvenient" to admit the truth of that so better to pretend it is untrue.

I suppose "technically" he was not a former Nazi but rather he was a "Hitler Youth" (big improvement there! :idea2:).

Having just reconfirmed this fact from several sources, it now strengthens my original point because comparing a bonafide "Hitler Youth" -which Benedict was - to Hitler, makes the comparison even more fitting.

'Technically', you were flat-out wrong.

Your screeds against the Vicar of Christ only show how little you know about the Hitler Youth and Nazi Germany.

637 AD: Umar conquers Jerusalem. No civilian (man, woman, child) is harmed. He is given the key to the city by Patriarch Sophronius, and invited to pray at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. He prayed some distance, so it would not be converted to a Mosque. 50 years later, a Mosque of Umar built on the site he first prayed.

Let's see what Sophronius had to say about the Muslims;

In his sermon on Christmas day 634, the patriarch of Jerusalem, Sophronius, lamented over the impossibility of going on pilgrimage to Bethlehem, as was the custom because the Christians were being forcibly kept in Jerusalem: ‘not detained by tangible bonds, but chained and nailed by fear of the Saracens,’ whose ‘savage, barbarous and bloody sword’ kept them locked up in the town…Sophronius, in his sermon on the Day of the Epiphany 636, bewailed the destruction of the churches and monasteries, the sacked towns, the fields laid waste, the villages burned down by the nomads who were overrunning the country. In a letter the same year to Sergius, the patriarch of Constantinople, he mentions the ravages wrought by the Arabs. Thousands of people perished in 639, victims of the famine and plague that resulted from these destructions.

The countryside [in Syro-Palestine, Iraq, Persia, and Armenia] suffered constant razzias, while those who escaped the sword swelled the contingents of enslaved women and children, shared out among the soldiers after the deduction of the fifth [share of the “booty”] reserved for the caliph.

Gee, why would they be so fearful if the Muslims are so nice? But I'm sure you, deluded by Islamist apologetics and political correctness, know more about how nice they were better than Sophronius.

And what did Umar himself say?

The essential pattern of the jihad war is captured in the great Muslim historian al-Tabari’s recording of the recommendation given by Umar b. al-Khattab to the commander of the troops he sent to al-Basrah (636 AD), during the conquest of Iraq. Umar (the second “Rightly Guided Caliph”) reportedly said:

Summon the people to God; those who respond to your call, accept it from them, (This is to say, accept their conversion as genuine and refrain from fighting them) but those who refuse must pay the poll tax out of humiliation and lowliness. (Qur’an 9:29) If they refuse this, it is the sword without leniency. Fear God with regard to what you have been entrusted.

That's oh so tolerant of other religions. But of course, Muslims never converted with fear.

For instance, when Muhammad ordered the Banu Quranya (sp?) Jews executed, he only had the men executed, and of those only the warriors who had fought against him and killed some of his own warriors, IIRC.
So he executed prisoners in cold blood? I assume he took the remainder as slaves.

It seems some are all to willing to have the veil of deceit hoisted over their eyes and uncritically accept revised history and lies as truth.

Crazed Rabbit

sharrukin

09-18-2006, 00:04

Quote:
Oh please. I'm sick of this "Jihad is just an inner struggle" crap.

It is. What you see on the news without having read the Qur'an yourself, or the sunnah, or the hadith, is fools that know nothing of what they say they fight for. They are abusing Islam, true Islam, for their own power plays, and they are abusing it via the ignorance and undereducation of the largest part of the Middle-East.

http://www.muslimaccess.com/quraan/arabic/009.asp

9:38 O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter.

Hmm...how many "inner struggles" do you know that carry the risk of death?

9:41 Go ye forth, (whether equipped) lightly or heavily, and strive and struggle, with your goods and your persons, in the cause of Allah. That is best for you, if ye (but) knew.

This rather clearly indicates the MILITARY nature of the topic! "lightly or heavily" equipped.

9:44 Those who believe in Allah and the Last Day ask thee for no exemption from fighting with their goods and persons. And Allah knoweth well those who do their duty.

www.muslimaccess.com is a pro-Islamic site and these are their words!

Quote:
Judging from the actions of Muslim armies in the past and the actions of Mohammed himself, I extremely doubt the existence of any such rules, unless they apply only to Muslims.

Then perhaps you should read the hadith a time or two again. For instance, when Muhammad ordered the Banu Quranya (sp?) Jews executed, he only had the men executed, and of those only the warriors who had fought against him and killed some of his own warriors, IIRC. And, no -- these Jews weren't Muslims. ~:)

Well what did happen to those women? They were spoils of war and it had nothing to do with mercy or compassion, but simply cold-blooded slave raiding and sale of goods!

From http://www.islamicity.com (pro-Islamic site)

"As for the spoils of the war, the Prophet [pbuh] divided them, after putting a fifth aside, in accordance with Allah’s injunctions. Three shares went to the horseman and one to the infantry fighter. Women captives were sent to Najd to be bartered with horses and weaponry."

"When the siege intensified and became unbearable for Banu Qurayzah, they wanted to surrender and accept whatever judgment the Prophet passed on them."

"The number of warriors who were executed was 400.
[24] Ahmad, al Musnad, 3/350, with a hasan isnad; Ibn Hajar (Fath al Bari, 7/14) mentioned the differences in their numbers, ranging from 400 to 900, and reconciled the different reports by saying that the increase included the followers of Banu Qurayzah, such as slaves, freedmen, and others."

"Three of Banu Qurayzah were spared because they entered Islam"

So much for "no forced conversions". Unless what is meant is that they didn't have to convert! I mean they can always choose death!

"The executions were carried out in the market place in Madinah, where trenches were dug; they were killed in groups and thrown into the trenches.[27] Only one of their women was killed[28]; she had killed one of the companions Khalid ibn Suwayd by dropping a millstone on him."

Reenk Roink

09-18-2006, 00:23

Gee, why would they be so fearful if the Muslims are so nice? But I'm sure you, deluded by Islamist apologetics and political correctness, know more about how nice they were better than Sophronius.

Watch the personal attacks...

Of course Sophronius would be engaged in polemics, seeing that the Empire that gave him his power was losing its foothold in Syria (the ancient province).

It's interesting that he labels them as he did, considering the fact that they abided by rules of warfare that were centuries beyond their time. I do wonder, why the contradiction between Sophronius's label and what the Muslims actually did? I must wonder why Sophronius did not make a mention of the Arab conduct at Damascus. After conquering the city, they removed their garrison to face a advancing Byzantine force. Before they left, they happened to pay back all the taxes they collected from the inhabitants, as they could not defend them. Doesn't seem so "barbarous". No mention in Sophronius writings about that? Hmm...

But then again, Sophronius played nice guy again when he saw all was lost. After all, what better way to keep your position then to give the key to the conqueror and invite him to pray in your church...

However, I'm sure the Jews, and non-Orthodox Christians would have thought different of the Saracens. After all, the persecution that they suffered under the Byzantines, was replaced by a tax levied on adult males only in place of military service, dependent on income... :rolleyes:

That's oh so tolerant of other religions. But of course, Muslims never converted with fear.

They usually didn't. Why did the population that they conquered stay non-Muslim for so long?

Just read Byzantium and the Early Islamic Conquests (http://www.amazon.com/Byzantium-Islamic-Conquests-Walter-Kaegi/dp/0521484553/sr=8-1/qid=1158537192/ref=sr_1_1/002-4685122-9332043?ie=UTF8&s=books) by Walter Kaegi. It is the most fair and balanced and historically accurate account. It avoids the Arab glorification of their achievement but also the harsh anti-Islamic invective that has been the cornerstone for Western historians until recently.

And for Pete's sake, nobody ever uses the Israelite wars as described in the Old Testament to belittle Jews, however, this seems perfectly acceptable when it comes to Islam/Muslims.

Let's remember context people... :rolleyes:

Papewaio

09-18-2006, 00:46

What was the Persian scholars reply to the Byzantine Emperor?

econ21

09-18-2006, 00:56

What was the Persian scholars reply to the Byzantine Emperor?

Dunno - it seems to have been a case of history being written by the victor (or maybe, in this case, loser). One report said the source was the Emperor himself, explaining why his side of the argument got more page space.

Actually, the Persian must have been a pretty tolerant type. If someone said to me that my faith had brought nothing new but that which was evil or inhuman, it would be the end of the conversation (if I had any faith, of course).

In fact the quoted exchange sounds rather like a boaster embellishing his report of an exchange to make him sound good ("Well, I really told that taxi driver where to get off. Fancy him supporting Sven-Goran Ericksson! I said to him: nothing but that which is evil and inhuman came after that Swede managed England."). Either that or the Byzantine Emperor's diplomatic skills were on a par with the present Pope's.

Xiahou

09-18-2006, 01:02

Here (http://catholiclondoner.blogspot.com/2006/09/very-rushed-post.html) is some info from a Catholic Londoner who had to put up with Muslim protestors while trying to attend mass.
Unfortunately after Mass today at Westminster Cathedral it was shoved in my face. Holy Mass on a Sunday is the very source and summit of the Catholic week, so my family decided this Sunday to make the trip to Westminster Cathedral together. As we came out about 100 Islamists were chanting slogans such as "Pope Benedict go to Hell" "Pope Benedict you will pay, the Muja Hadeen are coming your way" "Pope Benedict watch your back" and other hateful things. I'll post more pictures of it when I get more free time. It was a pretty nasty demonstration. From 11 - 3pm they chanted absurd things, literally just outside the Cathedral. And from 11- 3pm (and indeed all day, every day) like every day of the week, faithful Catholics and non-Catholics (mainly tourists) wondered in and out of the magnificent Church, largely ignoring the furore of hatred this crowd of muslims was trying to stir up.
I particularly like the picture where you can see the protestor with the sign reading "Jesus is the slave of Allah". I wonder what the reaction would be if Christians protested at mosques with signs like "Mohammed is the slave of Jesus" or "Mohammed go to hell".....

Sasaki Kojiro

09-18-2006, 01:04

It sounds to me like they just saw the quote reported out of context on the news and were told that the pope said islam = violence, so they protested it.

People in this thread read in the news that muslims rioted and now think muslims are violent.

Blame the media!

Crazed Rabbit

09-18-2006, 01:35

Watch the personal attacks...

Of course Sophronius would be engaged in polemics, seeing that the Empire that gave him his power was losing its foothold in Syria (the ancient province).

It's interesting that he labels them as he did, considering the fact that they abided by rules of warfare that were centuries beyond their time. I do wonder, why the contradiction between Sophronius's label and what the Muslims actually did?
A contradiction according to you. Are you saying he was lying? Funny, too, how you try to defame his character as soon as you realised he might not love the Muslims who kept the people of his city cowering in fear.

This, "It's interesting that he labels them as he did, considering the fact that they abided by rules of warfare that were centuries beyond their time." is especially absurd. They obviously did not abide by any such rules, and your insistence that they did is laughable.

I ask, what has Islam given the world?

Crazed Rabbit

Lemur

09-18-2006, 01:40

I ask, what has Islam given the world?
Well, back before the fundamentalists took over, they gave us arabic numerals, optics, algebra, and some kickin' poetry. After the fundies took over, well, nothing much.

Nothing crushes the life out of a civilization like fundamentalists. Nations recover from communism much more quickly.

Reenk Roink

09-18-2006, 02:10

A contradiction according to you. Are you saying he was lying? Funny, too, how you try to defame his character as soon as you realised he might not love the Muslims who kept the people of his city cowering in fear.

Funny how you speak of character defamation... :rolleyes:

Here is what Kaegi has to say about Sophronius. Keep in mind, he is classified as an "non-historical source":

Non-historical sources present a number of challenges. First the range of this category of Byzantine sources is vast. They can range from papyri to sermons (most notably those of Patriarch Sophronius of Jerusalem and St. Anastasius the Sinaite), poetry (especially that of Sophronius and George of Pisidia) correspondence often of a patristic provenance, apologetic treatises, including anti-Judaica...

It's just too easy to use Sophronius's apologetics as the authority on what happened, and it is the methodology of those who wish history to be a certain way. Thankfully, most historians don't share this view.

This, "It's interesting that he labels them as he did, considering the fact that they abided by rules of warfare that were centuries beyond their time." is especially absurd. They obviously did not abide by any such rules, and your insistence that they did is laughable.

Then you are going against the position of many historians who have much more knowledge of the sources on both sides than either you or I.

...only one possible explanation remains for the Arab success-and that was the spirit of Islam... The generous terms that the invading armies usually offered made their faith accessible to the conquered populations. And if it was a new and upstart faith, its administration by simple and honest men was preferable to the corruption and persecution that were the norm in more civilized empires...

In the wake of the Ridda wars, and of the Arabs' sudden conquest of most of the Near East, the new religion became identified more sharply as a monotheism for the Arab people.

As is well known, the Arabs made no attempt to impose their faith on their new subjects, and at first in fact discouraged conversions on the part of non-Arabs.

I ask, what has Islam given the world?

???

Crazed Rabbit

09-18-2006, 02:17

Well, back before the fundamentalists took over, they gave us arabic numerals, optics, algebra, and some kickin' poetry. After the fundies took over, well, nothing much.

Nothing crushes the life out of a civilization like fundamentalists. Nations recover from communism much more quickly.

True, they gave some good things. Unfortunately, the fundies have been at the helm for centuries, and they seem to be getting more fundamentalistic. And what the fundies bring is certainly not good.

As is well known, the Arabs made no attempt to impose their faith on their new subjects, and at first in fact discouraged conversions on the part of non-Arabs.

As I said earlier...

The essential pattern of the jihad war is captured in the great Muslim historian al-Tabari’s recording of the recommendation given by Umar b. al-Khattab to the commander of the troops he sent to al-Basrah (636 AD), during the conquest of Iraq. Umar (the second “Rightly Guided Caliph”) reportedly said:

Summon the people to God; those who respond to your call, accept it from them, (This is to say, accept their conversion as genuine and refrain from fighting them) but those who refuse must pay the poll tax out of humiliation and lowliness. (Qur’an 9:29) If they refuse this, it is the sword without leniency. Fear God with regard to what you have been entrusted.

The poll tax is in the Koran, is it not? Sounds rather intolerant from the get-go.

Crazed Rabbit

Soulforged

09-18-2006, 02:35

True, they gave some good things. Unfortunately, the fundies have been at the helm for centuries, and they seem to be getting more fundamentalistic. And what the fundies bring is certainly not good.
We live in a society of masses today. We're used to technicalities and mechanical functioning. That's why I'll give you the benefit of the doubt...However, people who don't see the whole canvas (including historical and espiritual perspectives), and believe me, there are many, including me, tend to have a fantastic image of another person, society or state. In your case, it's the sensation of the muslim world tending towards fundamentalism. Nothing wrong with that, if you take into account that those people and many in the occident tend to see the USA as an evil empire (yes, empire, people who don't know what an empire is...). So, I'll make it simple, that's why we've history analists and also political analists, to see this from a critical point of view and tell you what's their interpretation, wich of course is much more informed, and it usually includes the whole canvas. Your interpretation and perspective is just partial as anyone else's.

Reenk Roink

09-18-2006, 03:08

The poll tax is in the Koran, is it not? Sounds rather intolerant from the get-go.

Every religious law code will be incompatible with secular law codes. Certainly the poll tax is discriminatory. Plainly so. And yet, I'm reminded of a sublime maxim uttered by The Wizard, though I cannot recall the exact wording.

Something about judging history according to its context...

This is why historians remark on relative tolerance and such.

Seamus Fermanagh

09-18-2006, 03:29

However, people who don't see the whole canvas (including historical and espiritual perspectives), and believe me, there are many, including me, tend to have a fantastic image of another person, society or state.

Soul'

Clarification question. Are you using "fantastic" in its older meaning = based on fantasy and impressions/hypothetical and/or lacking in data OR the more common US English usage = wonderful/great?

I'm assuming the former....

Crazed Rabbit

09-18-2006, 03:58

Every religious law code will be incompatible with secular law codes.

Oh, really...

Honor your father and your mother.

You shall not kill.

You shall not commit adultery.

You shall not steal.

You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

You shall not covet your neighbor's wife.

You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor.

Perhaps every religious law code of a certain religion would be a better phrase.

I still wonder how you call the armies Umar headed 'centuries ahead' of the rules of war when he instructed all who did not pay the humiliating poll tax to be killed.

Crazed Rabbit

Mooks

09-18-2006, 03:58

This...is incredibly stupid. So stupid, its almost funny.

Though, I think the muslims are protesting this way because in the bible it says not to retaliate, but to love your enemies. I highly doubt that the nun wouldve been killed, had the bible not said that. The sheer ignorance of the protesters blows my mind away though.

Sasaki Kojiro

09-18-2006, 04:02

sharrukin

09-18-2006, 04:10

Contemporary islam and its teachings of peace and love!

Saudi Arabia
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/19/AR2006051901769.html
http://india.indymedia.org/en/2003/08/6869.shtml
Malaysia
http://www.malaysiakini.com/letters/51557
Egypt
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14017
Pakistan
http://www.natashatynes.com/newswire/2005/08/in_pakistans_pu.html
Kuwait
http://www.intelligence.org.il/eng/memri/june_i_05.htm

This is what they are currently teaching their children, and it aint Brother Loves Travellin Salvation Show!

No forced conversions?
Tipu Sultan in Kerala ring a bell?
The Jannisaries?
Or just about any Muslim military campaign that ever took place.

How about the Prophet's letters?

Letter to the Vicegerent of Egypt, called Muqawqas

The Prophet [pbuh] wrote to Juraij bin Matta[Rahmat-al-lil'alameen 1/178; Dr. Hamidullah said that his name was Binyamin], called Muqawqas, vicegerent of Egypt and Alexandria saying:

"In the Name of All the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful.

From Muhammad slave of All and His Messenger to Muqawqas, vicegerent of Egypt.

Peace be upon him who follows true guidance. Thereafter, I invite you to accept Islam. Therefore, if you want security, accept Islam. If you accept Islam, All the Sublime, shall reward you doubly. But if you refuse to do so, you will bear the burden of the transgression of all the Copts.

-"Therefore, if you want security, accept Islam."

A Letter to Haudha bin ‘Ali, Governor of Yamama

"In the Name of All the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful.

From Muhammad, Messenger of All to Haudha bin ‘Ali.

Peace be upon him who follows true guidance. Be informed that my religion shall prevail everywhere. You should accept Islam, and whatever under your command shall remain yours."

I am guessing that this is a threat of violence perhaps?

How about the Sura's?
9:33 He it is Who hath sent His messenger with the guidance and the Religion of Truth, that He may cause it to prevail over all religion, however much the idolaters may be averse.

"When Muhammad and his followers were about to attack Mecca to subjugate it to islam, his adherents arrested Abu Sufyan, one of Mecca's inhabitants. They brought him to Muhammad. Muhammad told him: "Woe to you, O Abu Sufyan. Is it not time for you to realize that there is no God but the only God?" Abu Sufyan answered: "I do believe that." Muhammad then said to him: "Woe to you, O Abu Sufyan. Is it not time for you to know that I am the apostle of God?" Abu Sufyan answered: "By God, O Muhammad, of this there is doubt in my soul." The 'Abbas who was present with Muhammad told Abu Sufyan: "Woe to you! Accept islam and testify that Muhammad is the apostle of God before your neck is cut off by the sword." Thus he professed the faith of islam and became a muslim." Ibn Hisham, "The Biography of Muhammad"

No forced conversions?

In his book, "The Biography of the Apostle", part 4, Ibn Hisham says (page 134):

"Muhammad sent Khalid Ibn al-Walid to the tribe of the children of Haritha and told him: 'Call them to accept islam before you fight with them. If they respond, accept that from them, but if they refuse, fight them.' Khalid told them: 'Accept islam and spare your life.' They entered islam by force. He brought them to Muhammad. Muhammad said to them: 'Had you not accepted islam I would have cast your heads under your feet"' (refer to page 134, and also see Al Road Al Anf, part 4, pp. 217, 218. You will find the same incident).

No forced conversions?

[5:33] The just retribution for those who fight GOD and His messenger, and commit horrendous crimes, is to be killed, or crucified, or to have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides, or to be banished from the land. This is to humiliate them in this life, then they suffer a far worse retribution in the Hereafter.

[5:34] Exempted are those who repent before you overcome them. You should know that GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful.

This is forced conversion in my books!

http://www.salaam.co.uk/knowledge/christians.php

"It is necessary at this juncture to be clear about the attitude of the Qur'ãn to Christians before we proceed to discuss their treatment at the hands of Muslim generals and administrators. While the Qur'an proclaims that 'verily, the (true) religion in God's slight is Islam', it deals with two categories of communities outside the fold: (a) the pagans who worshipped idols; they were never to be tolerated; their choice was either to embrace Islam or be liable to punishment or death; (b) the People of the Book (Ahlu'l kitab), the Jews and Christians, and by later practice also certain others..."

* 15 Chiefly the Sabians (As-Sabiun in the Qur'an v.73) and the Magians (Al-Mujus or 'Zoroastrians' in the Qur'an xxii.17).

From The Islamic Quarterly, London
January - April 1961

Peace loving fellows?

Sura 2:191
“Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loves not transgressors. And kill them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter...

Sura 4:89
“They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): so take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (from what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks."

A religion of tolerance?

[3:118] O you who believe, do not befriend outsiders who never cease to wish you harm; they even wish to see you suffer. Hatred flows out of their mouths and what they hide in their chests is far worse. We thus clarify the revelations for you, if you understand.

[3:28] The believers never ally themselves with the disbelievers, instead of the believers. Whoever does this is exiled from GOD. Exempted are those who are forced to do this to avoid persecution. GOD alerts you that you shall reverence Him alone. To GOD is the ultimate destiny.

[3:56] "As for those who disbelieve, I will commit them to painful retribution in this world, and in the Hereafter. They will have no helpers."

[4:144] O you who believe, you shall not ally yourselves with the disbelievers, instead of the believers. Do you wish to provide GOD with a clear proof against you?

[5:51] O you who believe, do not take certain Jews and Christians as allies; these are allies of one another. Those among you who ally themselves with these belong with them. GOD does not guide the transgressors.

[5:57] O you who believe, do not befriend those among the recipients of previous scripture who mock and ridicule your religion, nor shall you befriend the disbelievers. You shall reverence GOD, if you are really believers.

[8:67] It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land.

[9:14] You shall fight them, for GOD will punish them at your hands, humiliate them, grant you victory over them, and cool the chests of the believers.

[9:23] O you who believe, do not ally yourselves even with your parents and your siblings, if they prefer disbelieving over believing. Those among you who ally themselves with them are transgressing.

[9:113] Neither the prophet, nor those who believe shall ask forgiveness for the idol worshipers, even if they were their nearest of kin, once they realize that they are destined for Hell.

[9:28] O you who believe, the idol worshipers are polluted; they shall not be permitted to approach the Sacred Masjid after this year. If you fear loss of income, GOD will shower you with His provisions, in accordance with His will. GOD is Omniscient, Most Wise.

[9:29] You shall fight back against those who do not believe in GOD, nor in the Last Day, nor do they prohibit what GOD and His messenger have prohibited, nor do they abide by the religion of truth - among those who received the scripture - until they pay the due tax, willingly or unwillingly.

[9:123] O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him.

[25:52] So obey not the disbelievers, but strive against them herewith with a great endeavour.

[8:86] Thou hadst no hope that the Scripture would be inspired in thee; but it is a mercy from thy Lord, so never be a helper to the disbelievers.

[58:22] You will not find people who believe in GOD and the Last Day befriending those who oppose GOD and His messenger, even if they were their parents, or their children, or their siblings, or their tribe.

[60:1] O ye who believe! Choose not My enemy and your enemy for allies. Do ye give them friendship when they disbelieve in that truth which hath come unto you, driving out the messenger and you because ye believe in Allah, your Lord ? If ye have come forth to strive in My way and seeking My good pleasure, (show them not friendship). Do ye show friendship unto them in secret, when I am Best Aware of what ye hide and what ye proclaim ? And whosoever doeth it among you, he verily hath strayed from the right way.

[60:4] There is a goodly pattern for you in Abraham and those with him, when they told their folk: Lo! we are guiltless of you and all that ye worship beside Allah. We have done with you. And there hath arisen between us and you hostility and hate for ever until ye believe in Allah only - save that which Abraham promised his father (when he said): I will ask forgiveness for thee, though I own nothing for thee from Allah - Our Lord!

[98:6] Lo! those who disbelieve, among the People of the Scripture and the idolaters, will abide in fire of hell. They are the worst of created beings.

Never mind the assassinations of Kab Ashraf, Shaaban Ibn Khalid al-Hazly, Abu Afak, Asma bint Marwan, and others as well.

SAYING THAT THE MAJORITY OF MUSLIMS DO NOT SUPPORT THIS OR THAT, IS AS TRUE AS IT IS IRRELEVANT!

Most members of the Nazi party in Germany never laid a hand on a Jew!
That was done by the Brownshirts, state police, the SS, and other governmental organizations.
The Nazi party never even got a majority vote in elections.
Most Germans were good and decent people and would never have supported the Nazi's if they could have known what they really intended. Unfortunately Men have an amazing talent for self-deception.
The Bolsheviks in Russia were never a majority either.
Nor in Red China.
The Mafia/Cosa Nostra probably wouldn't get a majority vote from their constituents either.
The Muslim terrorists do not have the support of the majority in the Muslim community.

THEY DONT NEED A MAJORITY!

In a democracy, to win you need a majority. A violent minority does not need a majority to agree with them. They only need consent by silence, or protesting passivity. That is all that a motivated violent minority needs to achieve their aims.

The talking heads will of course be saying that we will never give in, and there will be no granting of concessions to such groups. But of course we will talk to those who didn't actually order the violent attacks and give them just such concessions, all in the name of looking for peaceful and democratic solutions to the problem.

These protests are about putting any critics on the defensive as a means to silence them. The Danish cartoon caper was the same sort of thing.

The Christianity of the New Testament, is different from the religion of the Old Testament. In like fashion Judaism (or Rabbinic Judaism), is to be contrasted to Judaism practiced during biblical times. There is no New Testament or Talmud that mitigates the violence of the founding texts of Islam. It remains a throwback to the morality of the early bronze age. Homer, the Illiad, and the warriors of Troy are more kindred spirits to the Sura's than anything in the New Testament. This violence outlook is still there and largely unchallenged by Islamic scholars, and it permeats the worldview of Islam.

Crazed Rabbit

09-18-2006, 04:43

Aren't there 10? You only quote 7, only 3 of which are illegal.

Yes, but the other three not mentioned refer to the proper worship of God, but do not set out any punishments for non-believers. The four which are not illegal are still good and decent guidelines.

sharrukin hits it on the nose.

Crazed Rabbit

Xiahou

09-18-2006, 14:20

No forced conversions?
Tipu Sultan in Kerala ring a bell?
The Jannisaries?
Or just about any Muslim military campaign that ever took place.Also the mamluks.

Reenk Roink

09-18-2006, 18:24

Oh, really...

Honor your father and your mother.

You shall not kill.

You shall not commit adultery.

You shall not steal.

You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

You shall not covet your neighbor's wife.

You shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor.

Perhaps every religious law code of a certain religion would be a better phrase.

I was thinking more on the Old Testament grounds, which, unless I'm mistaken, still are relavent to Christianity. Certainly to Judaism...

But then again, this is precisly why I don't copy and paste verses from holy books. It's not the verses, but their interpretation that matters, and I'll leave that to the high ranking Muslim leaders and Muslims themselves. After all, if they say that Osama bin Laden interprets the Quran wrongly, then let's leave it at that. Most Muslims say that Islam is contrary to the actions and claims of some terrorists. I'd reckon their interpretation is the most important. Islam is what Muslims interpet it to be, just as Christianity is what Christians interpret it to be.

But of course, people with agenda's love to quote the same passages over and over again, to make a point. I mean hey, the Nazi's did it with Jewish Scriptures...

I love this little comparison on this blog, between Nazi statements and that of little green footballs (a blog cited by some Organians): MoComedy (http://mocomedy.blogspot.com/2006/09/lgf-rip-off-of-1930s-german-kids-book.html)

:wink:

I still wonder how you call the armies Umar headed 'centuries ahead' of the rules of war when he instructed all who did not pay the humiliating poll tax to be killed.

This idea I have is actually derived from a multitude of respected, knowledgable, and most importantly, unbiased historians. Resisting it doesn't really make sense, but hey, if you want to be wrong, go ahead.

ajaxfetish

09-18-2006, 18:37

I was thinking more on the Old Testament grounds.
Not to nitpick, but the ten commandments are Old Testament material.

Ajax

Reenk Roink

09-18-2006, 18:46

Not to nitpick, but the ten commandments are Old Testament material.

Ajax

Absolutely, and 9 of those 10 commandments (barring the Sabbath) are also followed by Islam. I'm talking of penal laws and military conduct.

Duke of Gloucester

09-18-2006, 18:48

Ah, two posters attacking the statement of the Pope being a former Nazi, I suppose because it is "inconvenient" to admit the truth of that so better to pretend it is untrue.

Well some facts are inconvenient, yes. I will mention more of this later.

I suppose "technically" he was not a former Nazi but rather he was a "Hitler Youth" (big improvement there! :idea2:).

Ah, so this inconvenient "fact" is in fact not a fact at all. It is an invention by someone who doesn't know and can't be bothered to find out the difference between being a Nazi and being a member of the Hitler Youth.

Having just reconfirmed this fact from several sources, it now strengthens my original point because comparing a bonafide "Hitler Youth" -which Benedict was - to Hitler, makes the comparison even more fitting.

Which fact? The made-up one about Pope Benedict being a Nazi, or the real fact that, like all German males his age he was a member of the Hitler Youth; it was a legal requirement. Go on Navros: admit you were wrong, or is the fact that the Pope was never a Nazi too inconvenient for you.

I agree, though, the comparison was apt in the sense that, to a German, it is even more insulting to be compared to Hitler and that some ignorant people think German=Nazi, a similar ignorance to the one that says Moslem=terrorist.

Gawain of Orkeny

09-18-2006, 19:50

Rex_Pelasgorum

09-18-2006, 19:52

I recommen reading about the Islamic Conquista.

Not to forget, most of the bloodshed made by Christianity happened hundreds of year after Christ....and it clearly contradicts the teachings of the Bible.

While the bloodshed in Islam, started during the days of Mohamed....and it is encouraged by Coran... Sad but true.

Divinus Arma

09-18-2006, 20:18

Well Im just got here ant dont have time to read all 6 pages but it seems quite funny to me that they say the Pope misrepresented Islam as a relgion of violence and then to prove him wrong go around burning down churchs and the like. Is any more proof needed?

Mega dittos Rush.

Now they want to execute the pope. I would be infuriated if I were a moderate Muslim.

I know some moderate Christians and they can't stand the bible-thumper force-religion-down-your-throat-types. Same thing.

The moderates should begin to violently oppose their fundamentalist overlords.

GoreBag

09-18-2006, 20:26

Yes, but the other three not mentioned refer to the proper worship of God, but do not set out any punishments for non-believers. The four which are not illegal are still good and decent guidelines.

sharrukin hits it on the nose.

Crazed Rabbit

I remember there being a bit in the paragraph concerning, 'thou shalt not worship any other god but me...I am a jealous god', yadda yadda, about the destruction of those who do not love YHWH. I could be wrong, and it could be one of those things that was omitted in certain versions of the canon...whatever. Theology of the irrelevant isn't really my forte.

Devastatin Dave

09-18-2006, 21:23

I would be infuriated if I were a moderate Muslim.

My first post in a long time and I'm gonna make it a good one!!! Actually DA, if you were a "moderate" you would be doing like the rest of the "moderates" are doing; keeping your mouth closed because :
a. Deep down inside, you agree, or
b. You know better to not say anything or some of that "peaceful love" might get your throat slit.
sharrukin got it right.
(Gratuitous religion bashing removed by Ser Clegane.)

Later....:2thumbsup:

Navaros

09-18-2006, 23:09

Ah, so this inconvenient "fact" is in fact not a fact at all. It is an invention by someone who doesn't know and can't be bothered to find out the difference between being a Nazi and being a member of the Hitler Youth.

Which fact? The made-up one about Pope Benedict being a Nazi, or the real fact that, like all German males his age he was a member of the Hitler Youth; it was a legal requirement. Go on Navros: admit you were wrong, or is the fact that the Pope was never a Nazi too inconvenient for you.

Forgive me for not noticing a significant difference between a "Nazi" and a "Hitler Youth" - as if there is one. I admit I was wrong on a semantics basis, however the underlying themes of "Nazi" and "Hitler Youth" are still the same, so it's a minor error at best.

The Pope was just doing what was "legally required" as a justification for being a Hitler Youth and that makes it "okay". Well then, I guess we better go un-hang all the Nuremburg people who got hanged for also doing what was "legally required" by Hitler and yet were oddly found guilty and hanged nonetheless. Of course since applying the same standard of responsiblity to the Pope as was applied to the Nuremburg soldiers would be very inconvenient, I guess that's not going to happen.

Crazed Rabbit

09-18-2006, 23:36

Forgive me for not noticing a significant difference between a "Nazi" and a "Hitler Youth" - as if there is one. I admit I was wrong on a semantics basis, however the underlying themes of "Nazi" and "Hitler Youth" are still the same, so it's a minor error at best.

The Pope was just doing what was "legally required" as a justification for being a Hitler Youth and that makes it "okay". Well then, I guess we better go un-hang all the Nuremburg people who got hanged for also doing what was "legally required" by Hitler and yet were oddly found guilty and hanged nonetheless. Of course since applying the same standard of responsiblity to the Pope as was applied to the Nuremburg soldiers would be very inconvenient, I guess that's not going to happen.

Again, you show ignorance of history.

Those at Nuremburg where hung because they committed war crimes. It seems it is very 'convenient' for you to forget why they were hung and assume it was only because they are Nazis, and assume also that being in the Nazi party (not legally required) and Hitler Youth (legally required) are the same thing, when they are not.

This idea I have is actually derived from a multitude of respected, knowledgable, and most importantly, unbiased historians. Resisting it doesn't really make sense, but hey, if you want to be wrong, go ahead.

Resisting such an idea makes a heckuva lot of sense when the words and actions of those in the past tell a far different tale than what a 'historian' says. You continue to cling to nonsensical ideas found in apologetic books while ignoring real history.

But then again, this is precisly why I don't copy and paste verses from holy books. It's not the verses, but their interpretation that matters, and I'll leave that to the high ranking Muslim leaders and Muslims themselves. After all, if they say that Osama bin Laden interprets the Quran wrongly, then let's leave it at that. Most Muslims say that Islam is contrary to the actions and claims of some terrorists. I'd reckon their interpretation is the most important. Islam is what Muslims interpet it to be, just as Christianity is what Christians interpret it to be.

Are you admitting, then, that the Koran advocates violence upon unbelievers? How convenient for you to proclaim it isn't and ignore all the evidence that it is. That's what your whole participation in this thread has been about, talking about some mythical, peaceful interpretation of Islam, while ignoring the reality of condoned violence and hate many Muslims have for the west, and the silent compliance many more give it.

Crazed Rabbit

Kralizec

09-18-2006, 23:38

Forgive me

Asking us to forgive you for such a presumptious mistake is of little use if a couple of lines later you reiterate your (slightly modified) point, isn't it?

So someone who has done nothing except being enrolled by the Hitler Jugend is morally on par with someone who's been tried by the Nuremberg tribunal for genocide and/or other crimes against humanity?

I feel dumber everytime I try to grasp the logic behind your posts.

Duke of Gloucester

09-18-2006, 23:49

Reenk Roink

09-18-2006, 23:50

Resisting such an idea makes a heckuva lot of sense when the words and actions of those in the past tell a far different tale than what a 'historian' says. You continue to cling to nonsensical ideas found in apologetic books while ignoring real history.

:laugh:

Are you admitting, then, that the Koran advocates violence upon unbelievers? How convenient for you to proclaim it isn't and ignore all the evidence that it is.

You've got it all wrong. I never denied the violent passages in the Quran. If you can show me where I proclaimed that, please do so now. Otherwise end your misinformation.

That's what your whole participation in this thread has been about, talking about some mythical, peaceful interpretation of Islam, while ignoring the reality of condoned violence and hate many Muslims have for the west, and the silent compliance many more give it.

Bull****.

My participation in this thread has been to calm the hyperbole with facts. The exaggeration concerning the reaction by Muslims to the Pope's quotation being the main point.

However, I certainly did come out against misinformation against the history of Islam later on, using the analysis of well respected historians.

I also have responded to this myth of "compliance" and lack of condemnation of terrorism with many statements from many Muslim clerics, leaders, intellectuals, and groups.

You might want to reconsider everything you just said... :wink:

Navaros

09-18-2006, 23:51

Asking us to forgive you for such a presumptious mistake is of little use if a couple of lines later you reiterate your (slightly modified) point, isn't it?

So someone who has done nothing except being enrolled by the Hitler Jugend is morally on par with someone who's been tried by the Nuremberg tribunal for genocide and/or other crimes against humanity?

I feel dumber everytime I try to grasp the logic behind your posts.

It was a minor semantical error rather than a presumptuous mistake.

The point is that the Pope would have followed orders to massacre Jews had he been given them, just as he followed the orders to become a Hitler Youth. By him having been a Hitler Youth he shows he was no different - in intention - than any of those who were hung at Nuremburg.

The point is that the rest of mankind decided at Nuremburg that the reason of "I was just following Hitler's orders" is not a legitimate exscuse for one's actions, yet the Pope gets a "free pass" to be held to a different standard than that.

Duke of Gloucester

09-19-2006, 00:01

It was a minor semantical error rather than a presumptous mistake.

No. It was plain wrong, and your refusal to admit it just makes you look more silly.

The point is that the Pope would have followed orders to massacre Jews had he been given them, just as he followed the orders to become a Hitler Youth.

And exactly how do you know this to be true? Are you making ex-cathedra statements and claiming some sort of infallibility yourself, or are you going to provide some evidence to back this up.

By him having been a Hitler Youth he shows he was no different - in intention - than any of those who were hung at Nuremburg.

You can say it as many times as you like, Navros. It won't make it true.

The point is that the rest of mankind decided at Nuremburg that the reason of "I was just following Hitler's orders" is not a legitimate exscuse for one's actions, yet the Pope gets a "free pass" to be held to a different standard than that.

That's right. The occupying forces let him off at the time because they knew he would be Pope later on. Alternatively they treated him just the same as every other German his age who had not actually committed a war crime or crime against humanity.

Gawain of Orkeny

09-19-2006, 00:01

The point is that the Pope would have followed orders to massacre Jews had he been given them

How in hell do you know that?

Kralizec

09-19-2006, 00:28

Show your proof. More generalization. I highly doubt that a "majority of the folks that inhabit the middle east" have the mentality you attribute to them.

I wash to rash saying in saying "the majority" since the majority of the middle easterners are not that radical, but there's plenty of hotbeds where have been violent reactions against anyone christian.
But to pose a counter question: how many muslims (percentage wise, roughly) do you think follow the real message of Islam that conversion should always be uncoerced, or that followers of other religions should be treated with respect?

I've outlined this and I'll say it again. The reaction, that you claim has "gone WAY out of proportion" is just untrue when it comes to the entire Muslim world or even the Middle East. Unless you call peaceful protesting with calls for apologies overboard.

Depends on what you consider out of proportion. Civil protests, while they should never be prohibited by anyone, can be uncalled for too. If some high ranking muslim cleric called by personal philosophy (in my case, secular humanism/agnosticism) vile, immoral or without virtue, I would certainly not dignify it with a demonstration. A lot of muslims are way to uptight about critique on their religion, we say that even more clearly with the cartoon riots.
That, and when I say that a lot of muslims react to strongly that doesn't mean that all of the protesters must have had set fire to churches or intimidated christians. With every violent outburst there's only a tiny fraction that actually commits the deeds, but many more of them don't condemn those deeds or even agree with them.

However, I'll ask you to account for this: why hasn't this kind of reaction been seen in Kuwait, UAE, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Bahrain, Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Indonesia, Malaysia, etc.

My issue is obviously not with the nations where there's been no significant outcry. I already admitted that my initial statement was to broad.

Reenk Roink

09-19-2006, 00:36

Depends on what you consider out of proportion. Civil protests, while they should never be prohibited by anyone, can be uncalled for too. If some high ranking muslim cleric called by personal philosophy (in my case, secular humanism/agnosticism) vile, immoral or without virtue, I would certainly not dignify it with a demonstration. A lot of muslims are way to uptight about critique on their religion, we say that even more clearly with the cartoon riots.
That, and when I say that a lot of muslims react to strongly that doesn't mean that all of the protesters must have had set fire to churches or intimidated christians. With every violent outburst there's only a tiny fraction that actually commits the deeds, but many more of them don't condemn those deeds or even agree with them.

Where the protests have clearly gone out of hand (Palestine) the Hamas/Palestinan leader Haneiya has repeatedly condemned the attacks against churches.

Gawain of Orkeny

09-19-2006, 00:38

But to pose a counter question: how many muslims (percentage wise, roughly) do you think follow the real message of Islam that conversion should always be uncoerced, or that followers of other religions should be treated with respect?

Is that the real message of Islam though? I say the radicals follow true Islam and the example of Mohammed.

Ignoramus

09-19-2006, 00:38

All the Pope did was quote someone, and the Muslims fly into a rage. It's ridiculous. Muslims quote people who speak against Christianity, and the Christian community doesn't call for their death.

Crazed Rabbit

09-19-2006, 00:45

It was a minor semantical error rather than a presumptuous mistake.

The point is that the Pope would have followed orders to massacre Jews had he been given them, just as he followed the orders to become a Hitler Youth. By him having been a Hitler Youth he shows he was no different - in intention - than any of those who were hung at Nuremburg.

The point is that the rest of mankind decided at Nuremburg that the reason of "I was just following Hitler's orders" is not a legitimate exscuse for one's actions, yet the Pope gets a "free pass" to be held to a different standard than that.

You are a liar. You know nothing of the Pope but hate, while your heart apparently fills with joy in reading the latest protest by Muslims.

You also display a gross misunderstanding of the fact that the Pope is held to the same standards, and suffers not for it, because he did not do what those at Nuremburg did. Assuming that anyone joining the Hitler youth would have gladly gassed people displays your apalling lack of logical thought.

You would accuse all of WWII Germany as being as evil as those who orchestrated the final plan with your absurd logic.

Crazed Rabbit

Patriarch of Constantinople

09-19-2006, 00:56

And they attacked the ERE for more then 700 years, yes 700 years against one religion...

Excuse me but i dont think we are discussing the byzantines or the orthodox church thank you

Papewaio

09-19-2006, 01:06

Okay just a 24hr time out before it gets worse.

AntiochusIII

09-19-2006, 01:10

Okay just a 24hr time out before it gets worse.Good idea. It's getting in circles.

Aren't you going to lock it? :wacky:

Soulforged

09-19-2006, 01:10

Soul'

Clarification question. Are you using "fantastic" in its older meaning = based on fantasy and impressions/hypothetical and/or lacking in data OR the more common US English usage = wonderful/great?

I'm assuming the former....Yes and I should have told that. I'm asuming it in grades, it can range from fantasy to especulation based on scarse or incomplete information. But the phenomenum is undeniable: people seeing latin america as a niche of insecurity in globally, the US as an evil empire, the middle west as a foundamentalists "soup" or even France as the country wich cannot fight wars because they "always" lose... They're in part generalizations, but many people part from the a priori proposition of this truths with the simple mention of X being X in the newspaper.

Papewaio

09-26-2006, 02:27

Unlocked.

Play nicely.

No bashing each other.

ajaxfetish

09-26-2006, 04:33

Excuse me but i dont think we are discussing the byzantines or the orthodox church thank you
That's a bit of a hasty exclusion. For one thing, the offending quote was taken from a Byzantine ruler, so they're certainly involved in the discussion in one form or another.

Furthermore, the context of the quote was a response to an assertion that Islam had basically ceased aggressive expansion after Tours in the 8th century, while implying that the same was not true for Christianity, since the crusades took place later (also the Imperialist Age, which somehow has escaped being brought into the discussion). The post you quoted was a response that Islamic aggression still took place in the east. I already responded that I consider that Turkish aggression more secular than religious in purpose, but I would say the same of the crusades or later wars.

Orthodox Christianity is still Christianity, and both the Orthodox church and the Byzantine empire played a significant role in Christian-Islamic relations over the centuries.

Ajax

JR-

09-27-2006, 14:59

there was nothing wrong with what the pope said, and the reaction of various muslims does no credit to the religion they profess to follow.

n.b. i am an athiest

King Ragnar

09-28-2006, 16:48

He lives in Democracy thus he is allowed to say what he wants, or does this not apply in Italy? If Muslims dont like it who cares? I certainley couldnt there are some Muslims who bad mouth Christianity and the western culture everyday and get of scott free so who cares what the Pope says about Islam/Muslims.

Ser Clegane

09-28-2006, 17:25

He lives in Democracy
Actually he doesn't ... but as he is the head of his non-democratic state you are of course right that he can technically say what he wants ~;)

kataphraktoi

09-28-2006, 18:05

Actually he doesn't ... but as he is the head of his non-democratic state you are of course right that he can technically say what he wants

college of cardinals - partially democratic...

Ser Clegane

09-28-2006, 18:23

college of cardinals - partially democratic...

Getting elected by a body whose members are appointed by the previous Popes (and of which most are not citizens of the state the Pope is head of) is really only very partially democratic

BDC

09-28-2006, 21:18

Is that the real message of Islam though? I say the radicals follow true Islam and the example of Mohammed.
Fairly recently on the radio were some brilliant interviews with British people who had converted to Islam. They really annoyed some Arab Muslims who were interviewed too, with completely different views etc.

Don't confuse a religion with a culture would probably be the lesson there I guess.

Mooks

09-29-2006, 03:01

Hate is pointless. Espically hating millions of people all over the world who you have never met and will never.

yesdachi

09-29-2006, 13:56

Hate is pointless. Espically hating millions of people all over the world who you have never met and will never.
Depends on what your point is. The extremists (and politicians) seem to find it pretty useful in a motivational sort of way.

Kind of works here too, Hate Bush? Join the Democratic Party.
Hummm, hate liberals? Join the Republican Party. Two way street I guess.

ezrider

09-29-2006, 14:25

hating everyone is the crossraods.

yesdachi

09-29-2006, 14:51

Ugly Kid Joe ~D
I, hate the rain and sunny weather,
And i, hate the beach and mountains too;
(and) I dont like a thing about the city, no, no
And i, i, i, hate the countryside too!

And i, hate everything about you!