Clerics Demand Pope's Removal

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wakizashi

Plus England/British Empire/UK has a pretty decent list of ruthless leaders as well. Elizabeth and Victoria come to mind.

---

Victoria? The Queen-Empress was barely a leader, nevermind a ruthless one.

And as for that bit about:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

Anti-Muslim sentiment in Britain

Quote:

---

'Two countries'
"I've been working with young Muslims and they're angry - really angry and nobody wants to talk about this," he says. "When you go up north and see the conditions, it's like two different countries - and they feel that."

---

---

Poor Muslims have just as bad conditions as poor non-Muslims. Rich Muslims have the same conditions as rich non-Muslims. The reason that it might be like two different countries is that Muslims tend to gather together, so they have bad living conditions together. The chap in the article goes into these places because that is his job.
There is more talk amongst muslims in those areas about anti-muslim sentiment than there is in areas where that does not happen.

Victoria was a recluse after her anal retentive / borderline insane husband died. She then went into mourning for a few decades, ignoring her family as well as the country. In her lifetime she did vast damage to the influence and the perception of the royal family.

I imagine that poor muslims want what the poor mon muslims want in the UK: jobs that are cushy, well paid and require no training. That these don't exist is a prime example that they are oppressed, of course due to their religion, not that they are poorly trained.

Elizabeth was a master stateswoman. A protestant country surrounded by Catholics with enemies inside at all levels. To survive she had to move with the speed of a centipede on a hot tin plate, and ruthlessly remove threats as they emerged.

She was one of the early architects of the British Empire (I realise Britain didn't exist at the time) by basically stealing monies from Spain.

Kings and Queens that gained power generally didn't do so by rescuing orphaned kittens and winning flower arranging contests.

Catherine the Great
Peter The Great
Ivan the Terrible
Edward I (Hammer of the Scots)
Cromwell
Etc etc.

Depending on the time leaders were either violent killers themselves or employed others to do it for them.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Kings and Queens that gained power generally didn't do so by rescuing orphaned kittens and winning flower arranging contests.

Catherine the Great
Peter The Great
Ivan the Terrible
Edward I (Hammer of the Scots)
Cromwell
Etc etc.

Depending on the time leaders were either violent killers themselves or employed others to do it for them.

---

Which brings us back to the conquests that established the first Caliphate, maybe???

(Sorry, I'd forgotten the thread title by now :laugh4: )

Thing is the Qu'ran forbids forced conversions. It states that they are invalid. Only very strong persuation is allowed (although holding a sword to the guys neck is about the strongest persuation around :idea2: ). Where as Christianity has no such restraints present in the bible. Remember that Charlemagne conquered and forcibly christianized the continental Saxons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

Thing is the Qu'ran forbids forced conversions.

---

Tell that to the Extremists who have hijacked the religion.

Whatever the case these Pakistani(?) clerics (link to source would be good, as there isn't one or I've somehow missed it) don't have any right to demand the replacement of the Pope, a religious leader and Sovereign of the State of the Vatican City, of which they have no connection with.

I'm quite sure that if Christians demonstrated in the streets of a European city regarding the deposition of on of their religious clerics/mullahs, or one of their political leaders they would tell them to mind their own business and call it "western interference", putting it mildly.

I doubt I could actually tell them anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

Thing is the Qu'ran forbids forced conversions. It states that they are invalid. Only very strong persuation is allowed (although holding a sword to the guys neck is about the strongest persuation around :idea2: ). Where as Christianity has no such restraints present in the bible. Remember that Charlemagne conquered and forcibly christianized the continental Saxons.

---

However, is it not also true that Islam's goal is to submit all the countries to that religion. The conquered peoples will follow suit in due time.
If that wasn't the case, why did the Muslims act as they did immediately after the death of Mohammed?

@DA

I can't really comment about Holland or France, but Moslems in Britain up North is something I do know about. Most Moslems I meet in Bradford are not angry and alienated. There is poverty here and in other cities (some of which are not in the North) and this can lead to alienation, but that is not the same as "inferior status". In fact the article you quote is not about British attitudes to Moslems but Moslems' attitudes to British society. It is quite thought-provoking in that it presents a paradox. Islam has helped Dawood Gustave to integrate, but it is a barrier to integration for young Asian men. Also if you read what he says, he thinks it is about being "other" rather than being "Moslem". He says: "I don't see the way Muslims are treated as any different to how the Jewish and the Irish were treated before them." In Britain, Moslems do not have "inferior status"

As regards America acting in self-interest, I have no problem with this. In fact leaders ought not to get involved in wars unless it furthers the interests of their own countries. Warriors sign up to risk life and limb for their country, not someone elses. What is sickening is when Americans pretend to themselves and others that they intervened in European wars to help the Europeans. This does not mean I am not grateful for the courage and sacrifice shown by American soldiers: they deserve honour for what they did. However the truth is that they were fighting for America and only fought alongside the British because their interests co-incided. They fought well and we benefited, but don't kid yourself who they were fighting for. Besides, if I was going to single out a country to pour gratitude upon for fighting the Nazis, it would have to be Soviet Russia, wouldn't it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caravel

(link to source would be good, as there isn't one or I've somehow missed it).

---

link

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

Thing is the Qu'ran forbids forced conversions. It states that they are invalid. Only very strong persuation is allowed (although holding a sword to the guys neck is about the strongest persuation around :idea2: ). Where as Christianity has no such restraints present in the bible. Remember that Charlemagne conquered and forcibly christianized the continental Saxons.

---

The Quran does not forbid forced conversions.

Sura 2:256 as well as Sura 109:6 are misleading when presented to those who have not read the Quran

According to the doctrine of abrogation (as per Sura 2:106), which is accepted among the majority of Islamic scholars, verses that were revealed later in sequence abrogate earlier revealed ones where an apparent contradiction arises in the meanings of the respective verses.

Sura 9 is often regarded as the last or second last revealed out of 114 Suras and the the principle of abrogation means that these later verses render invalid earlier verses.
Sura's 2:256, 109:6 are abrogated by the verses from later Sura's, for example 9:5, and many others in sura 9, as well as sura 8.

To say that Muslims should not try to compel people to become believers, is inconsistent with most of the Koran.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesdachi

link

---

Quote:

---

"Jihad is waged to rid an area, state, or the world of oppression, violence, cruelty, and terrorism, and bring peace and relief to the people. History is full of incidents where Muslims waged jihad to provide relief to people of many faiths, especially Jews and Christians," it said.

---

Hmm, in that case I'd say the Middle East could use a big heaping helping of that jihad right about now- they've got plenty of violence, cruelty, and terrorism. Btw, anyone know any examples of jihads being waged to help Christians and Jews?

Quote:

---

Btw, anyone know any examples of jihads being waged to help Christians and Jews?

---

Dont you realise that all Jihads are for the good of everyone?

Quote:

---

"Jihad is waged to rid an area, state, or the world of oppression, violence, cruelty, and terrorism, and bring peace and relief to the people.

---

So for instance the invasion of Spain was for the good of the christians living there .

In related news...
An apparently lucrative cash-for-fatwa scandal has been exposed in India...

Quote:

---

Last week, many Muslims in India, like their counterparts around the world, gathered on the streets to burn effigies of the Pope and shout slogans denouncing him for his remarks on Islam and violence. Even before that fully died out, however, a new controversy erupted — one that has turned Muslim ire against some of their own local clerics.

India's "cash-for-fatwas" scandal broke out last weekend when a TV channel broadcast a sting operation that showed several Indian Muslim clerics allegedly taking, or demanding, bribes in return for issuing fatwas, or religious edicts. The bribes, some of which were as low as $60, were offered by undercover reporters wearing hidden cameras over a period of six weeks. In return for the cash, the clerics appear to hand out fatwas written in Urdu, the language used by many Muslims in Pakistan and India, on subjects requested by the reporters. Among the decrees issued by the fatwas: that Muslims are not allowed to use credit cards, double beds, or camera-equipped cell phones, and should not act in films, donate their organs, or teach their children English. One cleric issued a fatwa against watching TV; another issued a fatwa in support of watching TV.

Adding to the shock in India, home to the world's third-largest Muslim population (approximately 150 million), is that some of the clerics apparently caught in the sting operation teach at important institutions — one belongs to India's most famous Islamic seminary, the Darul Uloom at Deoband. At least two of the clerics have been suspended from their posts, but that hasn't satisfied everyone. Students at one madrassa in north India denounced the clerics, and in the city of Meerut, where a mufti, or cleric, had been caught on camera, the congregation at one mosque refused to offer prayers until he came before them, admitted to taking the money, and apologized.

---

Anyone want to take bets on whether or not India's the only place where this happens?

hmmm, maybe if i offer enough i could get one to issue a fatwa fobidding work :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

In related news...
An apparently lucrative cash-for-fatwa scandal has been exposed in India...Anyone want to take bets on whether or not India's the only place where this happens?

---

Hey, Xiahou, that is all the Pope's fault as well.

After all, we invented the idea of selling sacred stuff for cash. :wink3:

Quote:

---

Which brings us back to the conquests that established the first Caliphate, maybe???

---

There was not really much forced conversions during the Arab conquests, because when the conquests started most Arabs viewed Islam as the religion of the Arabs and thus the religion of the (to be) social and military elite, in the beginning there was even some rulers who tried to discourage conversion among non-arabs, and in the case where people did convert they did not lift the extra tax that was to be paid by other 'peoples of the book'.
Also many of the Christians in the middle-east and North Africa were really not all that unhappy about having the Arabs rule them instead of the Byzantiens who had persecuted many middle-eastern christians because they were monophysites unlike the Byzantines.

Quote:

---

Where as Christianity has no such restraints present in the bible. Remember that Charlemagne conquered and forcibly christianized the continental Saxons.

---

True, the Teutonic knights should also be mentioned in this respect, heck those guys even managed to nearly make certain launguages extinct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Hey, Xiahou, that is all the Pope's fault as well.

After all, we invented the idea of selling sacred stuff for cash. :wink3:

---

Oh paleese! The priests of upper and lower Kemet had it down to a science 2 millenia before the Romans made it Aegyptus. I wouldn't be surprised if information came to light that Gilgamesh was into the same gig too.

By the way, I have a spare indulgence if you want one....:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Where as Christianity has no such restraints present in the bible. Remember that Charlemagne conquered and forcibly christianized the continental Saxons.

---

Christianity states no restraints in the Bible? Read the Bible? "Love thy neighbour?"

Gee, I suppose Charlemagne was a role model Christian who read the Bible and followed its command to "love one another".

Isn't "love one another" a restraint in itself....or perhaps in Greek "love" means "holy war exterminate the infidel"....:laugh4:

For me the most interesting unknown episodes of the early Arab Caliphate is recapture of Alexandria by the Byzantine general Manuel (not the Emperor) a few years after the first Arab capture of Alexandria. The Alexandrians welcomed back the Byzantines (yes, the same oppressive ones) because it seems the toleration and taxation of the Arabs weren't as "advertised" before. But stupid Manuel wasted his initial popularity and made no effort to expel the Arabs....eventually he was kicked out of Egypt....deservedly.

A century later, Egyptian (Coptic or Miaphysite - same as Monophysite) Christians in the Arab fleet sent to reinforce the Arab siege of Constantinople deserted to the Byzantine Emperor Leo in 718.

IN the 9th century, there were two Coptic rebellions on a large scale in Egypt against oppresive taxation. According to a Muslim I've chatted to, Muslims also participated in showing their discontent against oppressive taxation. This means that oppressive taxation wasn't just a "Byzantine" thing, but a trait that existed in Muslim and Christian states as well. And, it also indicates that the dichotomous assumption that Byzantine = high taxation compared to other states needs more thought

Funnily enough, the Monophysites in the Caliphates took an active interest in the affairs of the Roman empire despite their bitter relationship with the Byzantines (more specifically, with the Chalcedonian clergy, rather than the Emperor himself). The recorded growth of church-building and monastic activity by the Monophysites in the 10th and 11th century in the Middle East was under Byzantine rule in regions around Antioch and Melitene where they recently reconquered old territories. Catherine Holme's essay "How the East was won" has a nice exposition on this. Can find it deremilitari.org :2thumbsup:

Rant over. :laugh4:

I won't contine arguing in defence or against the Caliphate or the Byzantines.
But, how come everytime the Caliphate or Arab Conquest or even Islam is mentioned all people do is complain that they were so... "evil". They were just humans, as were the Byzantines(who were not exactly saints), the Franks and the Crusaders.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Hmm, in that case I'd say the Middle East could use a big heaping helping of that jihad right about now- they've got plenty of violence, cruelty, and terrorism. Btw, anyone know any examples of jihads being waged to help Christians and Jews?

---

The Muslims took Jerusalem from the Persians with the aid of the Jews, according to the Jewish Virtual Library. AFAIK the Jews and even some Christians preferred the Muslims to the Crusaders, as Muslim rule (if not interrupted by wars with the Crusaders) was more settled and left the different communities in peace. In due course existing Crusaders followed the Muslim example and settled down to rule their new kingdoms, the ceasefires only ending when a new batch of zealots arrived on the latest Crusade. And IIRC the Muslims were invited into Andalusia by its inhabitants, as the region had stagnated since the collapse of Roman rule, and Muslim administration seemed to offer revitalisation (as it eventually did).

Those are some of the examples of indigenous peoples inviting the Muslims to rule over them, and over a number of generations many of them converted to Islam of their own accord. Funnily enough, the above are also often cited as examples of the Muslims conquering said indigenous peoples in the name of Islam and converting them by force.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

The Muslims took Jerusalem from the Persians with the aid of the Jews, according to the Jewish Virtual Library.

---

I think you'll find that the Arabs took the city from the Byzantines, with Jewish help. It was the sensible thing to do. After all, why resist and incur the wrath of a conquering, acendant power when you have no loyalty to the previous, repressive regime? May as well try a new one. The Byzantines had retaken the city from the Persians about a decade earlier. The Jews had also welcomed the Persians and the Byzantine response had been harsh once they regained control of the city and the surrounding territory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kataphraktoi

Christianity states no restraints in the Bible? Read the Bible? "Love thy neighbour?"

Gee, I suppose Charlemagne was a role model Christian who read the Bible and followed its command to "love one another".

Isn't "love one another" a restraint in itself....or perhaps in Greek "love" means "holy war exterminate the infidel"....:laugh4:

---

All that only counts if the neighbours happen to be Christians. If they aren't welll.... *sharpens axe* Then they must be shown the light, even if said light is only shown them while glinting off my axe head. :viking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sharrukin

To say that Muslims should not try to compel people to become believers, is inconsistent with most of the Koran.

---

The way it was portraited to me is that strong persuation. IE preaching or example is fine. Holding a guy down putting a sword to his neck and saying "Convert or die" isn't fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

All that only counts if the neighbours happen to be Christians. If they aren't welll.... *sharpens axe* Then they must be shown the light, even if said light is only shown them while glinting off my axe head.

---

Wow, that may be the most open goal in Backroom history.

Jesus was asked this very question, "Who is my neighbour?" his response, famously, was to tell the parable of the Good Samaritan.

His point being that all people are your neighbours. Forced conversion is implicitly, not explicitly, condemed by the Gospels and by Jesus own example.

I've read that Qaradawi's Day of Rage failed.

Which begs the question: what if you were to host a Day of Rage and no one turned up?

TV stars and politics... :no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dâriûsh

I've read that Qaradawi's Day of Rage failed.

Which begs the question: what if you were to host a Day of Rage and no one turned up?

TV stars and politics... :no:

---

Now that i look at it, there was hardly any protests, the Media just blew the entire protests thing, there are about a billion muslims, and how many protesters in each country? Iran turned about 500 at best in tehran ~;p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leet Eriksson

Now that i look at it, there was hardly any protests, the Media just blew the entire protests thing, there are about a billion muslims, and how many protesters in each country? Iran turned about 500 at best in tehran ~;p

---

Ahaha! And I'll bet Ahmadinejad's donkey they were all a bunch of bored Basij. Just like always... ~:rolleyes: :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caravel

Whatever the case these Pakistani(?) clerics (link to source would be good, as there isn't one or I've somehow missed it) don't have any right to demand the replacement of the Pope, a religious leader and Sovereign of the State of the Vatican City, of which they have no connection with.

I'm quite sure that if Christians demonstrated in the streets of a European city regarding the deposition of on of their religious clerics/mullahs, or one of their political leaders they would tell them to mind their own business and call it "western interference", putting it mildly.

---

They do it because, they think they are important in religous affairs in the world and that people want to hear their opinions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

Wow, that may be the most open goal in Backroom history.

Jesus was asked this very question, "Who is my neighbour?" his response, famously, was to tell the parable of the Good Samaritan.

His point being that all people are your neighbours. Forced conversion is implicitly, not explicitly, condemed by the Gospels and by Jesus own example.

---

Gospel was revised several times to make it work better. And the day to day operations of how to practice Christian principles was up to the chruch men. They interpreted how it went. There fore my analogy is perfectly correct, for the first 1000 years of the religions existance (300CE-1600CE).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

Gospel was revised several times to make it work better. And the day to day operations of how to practice Christian principles was up to the chruch men. They interpreted how it went. There fore my analogy is perfectly correct, for the first 1000 years of the religions existance (300CE-1600CE).

---

Are you saying the original books of the bible were edited? Im really skeptical about this...