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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hannibal99

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

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!

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiochusIII

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Conradus

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.

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 responsibility for the words he speaks.

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

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"...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiochusIII

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.

Pope apologizes for saying naughty things.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

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.

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. ~:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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

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.

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

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.

I await your response...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

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.

Quote:

---

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;

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

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."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

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 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:

What was the Persian scholars reply to the Byzantine Emperor?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

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.

Here is some info from a Catholic Londoner who had to put up with Muslim protestors while trying to attend mass.

Quote:

---

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".....

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!