Clerics Demand Pope's Removal

Well, since the other thread is still on a 24 hour hiatus I will start a new one and maybe a new conversation.

If you were the Pope what would you do?
Apologize? Call for war with Islam? Walk down the streets of Pakistan with a sandwich board that says “Prove me wrong and don’t kill me.”? Hide in the tower? Divert attention by allowing gay marriage? Bend over, drop trow and holler from the balcony “Kiss my crinkle star”? Offer to convert to Islam?
And don’t say kick out all the peepee touchers, it’s already been discussed.

Quote:

---

The "pope, and all infidels, should know that no Muslim, under any circumstances, can tolerate an insult to the Prophet (Muhammad). ... If the West does not change its stance regarding Islam, it will face severe consequences," it said.

---

The story

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

By ASIF SHAHZAD, Associated Press Writer

LAHORE, Pakistan - About 1,000 Muslim clerics and religious scholars meeting Thursday in eastern Pakistan demanded the removal of Pope Benedict XVI for making what they called "insulting remarks" against Islam.

Benedict "should be removed from his position immediately for encouraging war and fanning hostility between various faiths" and "making insulting remarks" against Islam, said a joint statement issued by the clerics and scholars at the end of their one-day convention.

The "pope, and all infidels, should know that no Muslim, under any circumstances, can tolerate an insult to the Prophet (Muhammad). ... If the West does not change its stance regarding Islam, it will face severe consequences," it said.

The meeting was organized by the radical Islamic group Jamaat al-Dawat, which runs schools, colleges and medical clinics. In April, Washington put the group on a list of terrorist organizations for its alleged links with militants fighting in the Indian part of Kashmir.

The meeting came after the pope said Sunday he was "deeply sorry" about the reactions to his remarks and that they did not reflect his own opinions.

He said Wednesday that he has "deep respect" for Islam, but he did not offer an apology that was demanded by some Muslim leaders offended by his remarks in Germany last week.

The pope acknowledged that his remarks were open to misinterpretation, but insisted he had not intended to endorse a negative view of Islam.

In Germany, Benedict cited the words of a Byzantine emperor who characterized some of the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad as "evil and inhuman," particularly "his command to spread by the sword the faith."

"This quote unfortunately lent itself to be misunderstood," the pontiff said Wednesday. "In no way did I wish to make my own the words of the medieval emperor. I wished to explain that not religion and violence, but religion and reason go together."

The clerics and religious scholars said they did not regard Benedict's latest comments as an apology.

"The pope has neither accepted his mistake, nor apologized for his words," it said.

The statement also said jihad was not terrorism and that "Islam was not propagated with the sword, but it became popular and was accepted by the oppressed peoples of the world because of its universal values and teachings."

"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.

Pakistan is the world's second most populous country, and its people have held small, peaceful rallies since the publication of pope's remarks about Islam.

Tell them;

Repent of your wicked lives, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, or suffer the sword of Christendom.

That would at least give them an actual reason to be upset! Entertaining as well!

So... a Westener saying something moderately offensive is the causus belli as this means that Muslims are forced to violence :inquisitive: What is this? Are they really that stupid?

I was under the impression that there are passages that state that if people can not be converted by the work then the sword is plan B

~:smoking:

A prime example of the pot calling the kettle black.

(I love these English cliches) :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Pakistan is the world's second most populous country, and its people have held small, peaceful rallies since the publication of pope's remarks about Islam.

---

Just about sums up the usefulness of this source for me.

Now let me go and interview some extremist Christian fundies what they think of Islam and what should be done with it. Representative?

Second most populous country?

Let's see:

1. China - 1,313,844,000
2. India - 1,103,371,000
3. USA - 299,779,731
4. Indonesia - 222,781,000
5. Brazil - 187,104,851
6. Pakistan - 158,130,500

My pedantry meets no bounds. ~;)

Maybe they are only counting the Moslems

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Silver Rusher

6. Pakistan - 158,130,500

---

I never realized Pakistan is that populous. :stupido2:

Ah well, I should've realized it's next to India. And was once a part of India.

On the topic: extremists are everywhere; extremists are fools. And the strengths of foolishness is like that of a dumb guar*: strong and easily manipulated. Pakistan has a lot of groups that will gain something from further increase of religious extremism, no?

And that news certainly is crap. Any average street Joe would recall in a second that it's either China or India that is the most populous, while the same average Joe might skip the USA, Indonesia, or Brazil. But since it claims it's the second largest country with such two obvious choices already above it...

Not that bad journalism isn't bad journalism in the first place, of course, and totally biased at that.

*Morrowind ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duke of Gloucester

Maybe they are only counting the Moslems

---

That's their problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duke of Gloucester

Maybe they are only counting the Moslems

---

If it is only Islam then yes it is the second largest Muslim country in the world (after Indonesia) but as Red Peasant says, that's still a bit of a :no::no:.

The irony and hypocrisy of it all is simply too much to stand.

I think we'll see an assasination here. Then the world will really take a crap. I can't wait.


Why is the world simply trying to ignore or appease the Islamofascist menace? A grand great war has been brewing under the facade of middle eastern stability. The petty tyrants have oppressed the islamic people for too long, and have created a breeding ground for disenfranchised extremists led by madmen who blame everything on the Jews and the United States.

The war will continue and grow. Open your eyes Europe. You will be the battleground. The angry Islamic populations of France and UK will not tolerate their inferior status for much longer.

And eventually the United States, ever your ally, will bail you out of your self-inflicted predicament once again.

Quote:

---

The angry Islamic populations of France and UK will not tolerate their inferior status for much longer.

---

Exactly what "inferior status"?

Quote:

---

And eventually the United States, ever your ally, will bail you out of your self-inflicted predicament once again.

---

Only if and when it is in your own self-interest to do so. (Which it won't be because we don't have much oil left)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

The ir
The war will continue and grow. Open your eyes Europe. You will be the battleground. The angry Islamic populations of France and UK will not tolerate their inferior status for much longer.

And eventually the United States, ever your ally, will bail you out of your self-inflicted predicament once again.

---

What inferior status is that then? My Muslim neighbours, some friends, some not, can vote, work, and take a crap just as freely as anyone else.

As for the US, you talk as if it exists outside of history, outside of the affairs of mankind and never does anything out of self-interest. Where do you guys get off on your self-righteousness? It's nauseating sometimes. If the Japs hadn't attacked Pearl Harbour you guys would still be wringing your hands, and counting your profits: blood money from British Tommies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duke of Gloucester

Exactly what "inferior status"?

---

THIS INFERIOR STATUS-

Anti-Muslim actions in the Netherlands:

Quote:

---

Once again, the Netherlands surprises. Flying in the face of a centuries-old commitment to freedom of religion, of conscience, and of expression, it is about to prohibit Muslim women from covering their faces in public. Should this legislation pass, and apply to the whole of the public sphere as the Dutch parliament desires, it will constitute one of the most restrictive responses to Islamic clothing both in Europe and beyond.

---

Anti-Muslim actions in France:

Quote:

---

The French called them Les cités. The ‘ghettos’ are specially built for excluded and disfranchised migrants from France’s former North African colonies - mostly Arabs and Muslims - and other parts of the world. Clustered on the peripheries of France’s big cities, Les cités proved to be laboratories for dissent and resistance against oppression. The children of the immigrants who built France after World War II are being pushed further outside the French society.

---

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."

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Duke of Gloucester

Only if and when it is in your own self-interest to do so. (Which it won't be because we don't have much oil left)

---

It is so damn sad that you really think this. It really is. Can't I support Europe because we share common values in democracy and freedom? Why does it have to be about oil? Because Michael Moore told you?

Lol!

Who ain't angry in this country!?

You'll have to do better than, "Ooh, my blood's really boiling about this Ethel/Ahmed. When you come 'oop north' it's like a totally different country, the Americans think we are all talk like Dick Van Dyke in Mary Poppins."

:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

It is so damn sad that you really think this. It really is. Can't I support Europe because we share common values in democracy and freedom? Why does it have to be about oil? Because Michael Moore told you?

---

It's true though. There was only one man in the US that wanted to fight militarism and fascism in 1939. That man was FDR. He had to manipulate the US into WW2. By forcing the Japanese to attack. You are as a people very self-rightoues. Not to mention patronizing. It's very tiring. :no:

Besides the world isn't ignoring or appeasing Islamofascists. They just aren't using military force against them, or any overt force at all. Unlike in the US european nations voting system is such that the votes of the Northafrican muslims in France, Turks in Germany, and Asian muslims in Britain matter a lot more than the urban islamic vote in the US. They all occupy what would be the lower end working class in those nations. If large numbers of working class jobs still existed in those nations. :dizzy2: They need time to integrate better. Time, the one thing that isn't in great supply.




How long before hispanic immagrents rebel against their infirior status in the US do you think?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

How long before hispanic immagrents rebel against their infirior status in the US do you think?

---

Not long apparently.

https://img84.imageshack.us/img84/39...protestse1.jpg

The difference is that our "hispanic immigrants" came here in violation of the law. They broke into our country and after having done so, are demanding rights which they are not entitled to. They are not citizens, just as I am not a citizen of the U.K. and do not deserve the protection and benefit of U.K. citizenship.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

It's true though. There was only one man in the US that wanted to fight militarism and fascism in 1939. That man was FDR. He had to manipulate the US into WW2. By forcing the Japanese to attack. You are as a people very self-rightoues. Not to mention patronizing. It's very tiring. :no:

---

Actually, FDR was not focused on war with Japan. US public sentiment had been inflamed by Japanese actions in China as well as incidents such as the Panay sinking. FDR thought that the sanctions would limit Japanese efforts, and truly did not expect them to attempt to swallow the entire Western Pacific Rim into their empire. FDR's focus from 1938 on was to limit/counter/defeat Germany, who he viewed as the primary enemy. If you think FDR -- who had put the navy into the war in the Atlantic as early as the Spring of 1941 -- was secretly delighted when Hitler was dumb enough to follow Pearl Harbor with a DoW on the USA, you are probably correct. Otherwise, he would have been hard-pressed to continue to oppose Germany actively -- US sentiment would have demanded a Japan focus instead.

Self-righteous? Probably so. Patronizing? Sometimes. Given our successes we tend to think we have a lot to contribute. You are no doubt correct that many (most?) folks around the world would prefer that we just shut up and go home.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

How long before hispanic immagrents rebel against their infirior status in the US do you think?

---

It'll be awhile, yet.:laugh4: Though there are those who have "reconquista" as their goal. To be fair with DA, however, he's been pretty clear that he likes his immigration legal and focused on assimilation - not takeover. He is also of the belief that the opportunities presented by the USA are such that almost anyone who is willing to work hard, obey the law, and get educated can make something of themselves -- opportunity tends to mitigate against revolt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

The irony and hypocrisy of it all is simply too much to stand.

I think we'll see an assasination here. Then the world will really take a crap. I can't wait.

---

I can wait -- and pray that it will never happen.

I would not, however, envy the current working hours and worry factor of the commander of the Swiss Guard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

And eventually the United States, ever your ally, will bail you out of your self-inflicted predicament once again.

---

No you won't. When you "bailed us out", you made sure to strip us of all our assets to pay for that help, while the last time we had to fight a war for our territory you were mighty reluctant to offer even moral support. The United States looks out for itself, and will only help us if it suits your purpose. Which is fair enough, but don't pretend otherwise.

Look through the post-war experience for a catalogue of how the United States, ever our ally, was constantly undermining Britain in the colonies. Up until mid-1944 FDR viewed the British empire as the next greatest evil, to be dealt with once the Germans and Japanese were finished off. That remained US policy even after Stalin fell from his good books.

Quote:

---

The statement also said jihad was not terrorism and that "Islam was not propagated with the sword, but it became popular and was accepted by the oppressed peoples of the world because of its universal values and teachings."

"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.

---

Bwah...bwahahhaa. Seriosly, if christrians werent peace-loving. Islam wouldnt even make these comments.

Oh come off it Pannonian, every country is self serving. If the UK could get better trade deals from a different source they'd do it in a heart beat.

Every Country is playing the same game, and every country wants to be the top dog. When America is no longer numero uno, then everyone is going to start hating on China or wherever. The thing is, is that America still has a long ways to go before we get knocked off our pedestal, so deal with it.

And Yes, if the West Still had a very Zealous Christian Population, the middle east would be 3 large craters named New Kansas, Crater 17, and That Place that used to be Saudi Arabia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wakizashi

Oh come off it Pannonian, every country is self serving. If the UK could get better trade deals from a different source they'd do it in a heart beat.

Every Country is playing the same game, and every country wants to be the top dog. When America is no longer numero uno, then everyone is going to start hating on China or wherever. The thing is, is that America still has a long ways to go before we get knocked off our pedestal, so deal with it.

---

You deserve a medal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

Not long apparently.


The difference is that our "hispanic immigrants" came here in violation of the law. They broke into our country and after having done so, are demanding rights which they are not entitled to. They are not citizens, just as I am not a citizen of the U.K. and do not deserve the protection and benefit of U.K. citizenship.

---

And you'd be wrong. Many Asians in Britain and North Africans in France came illegally. But they been around long enough to claim citizenship. What call anchor babies aren't exactly unique to the US.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Actually, FDR was not focused on war with Japan. US public sentiment had been inflamed by Japanese actions in China as well as incidents such as the Panay sinking. FDR thought that the sanctions would limit Japanese efforts, and truly did not expect them to attempt to swallow the entire Western Pacific Rim into their empire. FDR's focus from 1938 on was to limit/counter/defeat Germany, who he viewed as the primary enemy. If you think FDR -- who had put the navy into the war in the Atlantic as early as the Spring of 1941 -- was secretly delighted when Hitler was dumb enough to follow Pearl Harbor with a DoW on the USA, you are probably correct. Otherwise, he would have been hard-pressed to continue to oppose Germany actively -- US sentiment would have demanded a Japan focus instead.

---

FDR was the king of political scheemers, he would have made Machiavelli proud. He loved it, he also loved being an elected leader too. I watch a documentary series about Churchhill, FDR and DeGaulle. You know FDR tried no less than 4 schemes (including luring a Vichy General in Algeria to the allied side) to keep DeGaulle from being the sole leader of the free French? Anyway he was involved in government long enough to know what the Japanese were about. He knew that cutting of their oil would push them to war with the US. Maybe not right away but eventually.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Self-righteous? Probably so. Patronizing? Sometimes. Given our successes we tend to think we have a lot to contribute. You are no doubt correct that many (most?) folks around the world would prefer that we just shut up and go home.

---

You do. Money, technology, good will even. But the patronizing, self rightouness that invariably comes with it is what the rest of us don't want. The British had the same problem when they were in the top spot. *shrug* Maybe it just comes with being a superpower.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wakizashi

Oh come off it Pannonian, every country is self serving. If the UK could get better trade deals from a different source they'd do it in a heart beat.

---

That's why I said it was fair enough. It's the self-justification and the talk of loyal allies always bailing us out that irritates me. We paid for that help, and the payment was deliberately framed to ensure we would never regain our status as a world power. Add the tech exchange programmes that you reneged on (Tube Alloys being the most prominent, though the other tech "exchanges" also only ever went westwards), and Britain does not owe America anything for WW2. Accept that you made us pay through the nose and some more for the aid, and stop telling us to be grateful for it.

It might tell you something that I actually respect and admire FDR for shafting us thus - he was doing the right thing in enrichening his own country and establishing the basis for its continued dominance in the next 60 years and more. If only we had the same calibre and ruthlessness of leaders.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

FDR was the king of political scheemers, he would have made Machiavelli proud. He loved it, he also loved being an elected leader too. I watch a documentary series about Churchhill, FDR and DeGaulle. You know FDR tried no less than 4 schemes (including luring a Vichy General in Algeria to the allied side) to keep DeGaulle from being the sole leader of the free French?

---

Allies at War

Typically for FDR, when he was finally forced to accept De Gaulle as the leader of the Free French, he embraced him with greater public warmth than Churchill ever did, disguising in the public eye the many stilettos he had embedded in De Gaulle's back with this show of earnest friendship. FDR was definitely the outstanding politician of the 20th century.

Hehe. Well it wasn't like Churchill was a saint either. Granted, I do agree that the Allies really don't owe us anything, especially because it's been over sixty years since WWII, and nobody but the dwindling Veterans should have any right to say "we bailed you guys out" which none of them have. Its the current generation (especially Generation X) that invented the notion that "we bailed you guys out" mentality, most likely from stories of their parents or grandparents who fought in the war and the sacrifices they made, has for some reason, given them this self-righteous attitude. When in fact the Generation X'ers have given American Society Nothing but a looooooonnnnnnggggg list of problems that the future generations will have to solve. Okay, I take that back, the Generation X'ers gave us an excuse to be lazy.

I don't think, as the world globalizes a little more every day, that too many Young Americans believe we bailed you out. We're more used to the illusion that the US and Allies were all snug bed buddies from the beginning, and the US fought it's war to destroy Nazism, and since then we've been snug bed buddies, and thats the way its always going to be.

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

That's the one.

If you learn about FDR's personality he was fully capable of using Japan's need for oil to get the US into WW2. Not that I think less of him for forcing the Japanese into attacking Pearl harbour. His goal was to use WW2 to make the US the new primier world power, taking that spot from Britain without fighting them. In which he succeded. As in the game of kings (or presidents) the price is always paided in blood.

nevermind

doublepost

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...

Opk.

Quote:

---

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

---

I don't think they edited it, I just think they chose what to and what not to include.

The books themselves were not edited, although they may not have always been copied or translated faithfully. Decisions were made about which books should be in the canon and which should not. Had the gospels been systematcially edited we might expect them to be more consistent with each other.

As for the old testament, try reading the account of the flood from Genesis (Gen 6:5 to 8:22). It is clearly taken from different sources (possibly 4) and is not even self-consistent. Compare 7:2 with 7:8 and 7:15. How many pairs of clean animals were taken on board? Look at 7:17 and 8:4. How long did the flood last? If the actual texts were purposely edited to make them "work better", we might expect a better job to have been done.

Quote:

---

The books themselves were not edited, although they may not have always been copied or translated faithfully. Decisions were made about which books should be in the canon and which should not. Had the gospels been systematcially edited we might expect them to be more consistent with each other.

As for the old testament, try reading the account of the flood from Genesis (Gen 6:5 to 8:22). It is clearly taken from different sources (possibly 4) and is not even self-consistent. Compare 7:2 with 7:8 and 7:15. How many pairs of clean animals were taken on board? Look at 7:17 and 8:4. How long did the flood last? If the actual texts were purposely edited to make them "work better", we might expect a better job to have been done.

---

The Bible is not meant to be a history book like the textbooks u find a uni. Its a book of faith, not of science. And yet, it has been a boon to archaeologists who once thought cities mentioned in the Bible did not exist...like Ur.

I agree, the Gospels we have now is a product of what is included and excluded. The ones that were included have a pretty much compliment each other theologically. Obviously, those excluded don't...Its funny cos there are some groups out there trying to have theological debates with Christians by using the book of Barnabas even though it is not recognised by most Christians today.

Quote:

---

I don't think they edited it, I just think they chose what to and what not to include.

---

Choosing what to include and what to not include is editing :oops:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kataphraktoi

I agree, the Gospels we have now is a product of what is included and excluded. The ones that were included have a pretty much compliment each other theologically. Obviously, those excluded don't...Its funny cos there are some groups out there trying to have theological debates with Christians by using the book of Barnabas even though it is not recognised by most Christians today.

---

Merely that the Christians don't recognise a theological book only shows how narrow minded they are. If it were a Christian debate, then they can concentrate all the inconsistencies present today.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Choosing what to include and what to not include is editing

---

No one (on this thread) is claiming the bible was not edited. The discussion was about whether individual books were edited "to make them work better".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kataphraktoi

The Bible is not meant to be a history book like the textbooks u find a uni. Its a book of faith, not of science. And yet, it has been a boon to archaeologists who once thought cities mentioned in the Bible did not exist...like Ur.

---

Exactly, and the lack of internal consistency within, for example, the story of the flood shows that the authors may have had the same view.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Merely that the Christians don't recognise a theological book only shows how narrow minded they are. If it were a Christian debate, then they can concentrate all the inconsistencies present today.

---

You are not being reasonable here, Rory. By recognise we mean "recognise as canonical" rather than accept that these books exist. Acceptance of books as canonical is not a measure of open-mindedness, otherwise Catholics are more open-minded than Protestants and Mormon's are the most open-minded of all. You can't expect Christians to allow any book about religion to be in the bible or we would have to have the "Da Vinci Code" in there as well. I am not saying that there are no examples of Christians having closed minds, just that this is not one of them.

Apologies, I misunderstood that the issue was not the historic accuracy of the works, but the fact that they are not canonical.

I would still say that a theological debate should not be based on what one person views as admissable. A debate requires two points of view. Rarely works are made canonical by Churches, and the first step to accepting is discussing their validity.

Some versions of the bible are edited. Jehova's witnesses believe that Jesus was not hung on a cross for example, and their "translation" reflects this.

As we do not have access to the origional texts, we can not dismiss the possibility that there was editing of the work. A low level priest would not admit this, nor would a senoir figure who has decided to do so.

The fact that the Bible contradicts itself, differs widely between the old and the new testament, has had books removed and added over the years does not mean that many have thought )and still do think) that the Bible is the literal word of God. Thousands have been killed for saying otherwise.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by holybandit

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

---

Yes on several levels. When they (the old and new testaments) were translated from Aramaic to Greek they were edited. Not to include or exclude passages but to make the books "work" in the Greek language. When the latin translation was finished in the 300's it was full of innaccurate translations. Then 13 or the 39 books in the new testament were removed and the 13 left were made the official book of Christ.

I want someone to read the Aramaic books and then the latin (Or any other translations) and tell us how big the translation problem is. Probaly been done..just havent seen a blog or something describing it.

Hope that makes sense.

btw wouldnt the first books of the bibles be in Hebrew?

No one (on this thread) is claiming the bible was not edited
Duke .....I don't think they edited it, I just think they chose what to and what not to include....can you see why that statement got the reply it did ?.......

Quote:

---

Choosing what to include and what to not include is editing

---

Sooooooo....... "I don't think they edited it , I think they just chose to edit it " :no: :oops:

All depends what you mean by "it", although if you are talking about books, "them" is a better pronoun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by holybandit

I want someone to read the Aramaic books and then the latin (Or any other translations) and tell us how big the translation problem is. Probaly been done..just havent seen a blog or something describing it.

Hope that makes sense.

btw wouldnt the first books of the bibles be in Hebrew?

---

Yes and No. The Torah (or old testament) would have been written in Hebrew, but copies would be in Aramaic. The spoken language of Judea after kicking out the Seleucids and Roman rules was Aramaic (it's still not uncommon in Palestine). It's what Jesus (if he existed) spoke in day to day life. Honest to Yaweh Hebrew was a language of the priests of Solomons temple. In fact some groups of Jews consider pure Hebrew sacred and only to be spoken by the priestly tribe of Israel. They speak yiddish.

Okay, call that editing, but that's not what I meant, I considered "editing" in this case was to change the material not just selecting what should be included, I call that selecting not editing.

Quote:

---

In fact some groups of Jews consider pure Hebrew sacred and only to be spoken by the priestly tribe of Israel. They speak yiddish.

---

Don't some groups of those jews also oppose the existence of Israel on the grounds that Israel shall not exist again before the end times or something like that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

No one (on this thread) is claiming the bible was not edited
Duke .....I don't think they edited it, I just think they chose what to and what not to include....can you see why that statement got the reply it did ?.......

Sooooooo....... "I don't think they edited it , I think they just chose to edit it " :no: :oops:

---

This is a semantic point and utterly superfluous.

In fact we do have evidence that parts of the Bible were individually edited. Specifically, the resurection of Lazarus was originally contained in the gospel of Mark, but was removed because some heratics saw homosexual references in it. In fact there aren't any, but it was removed anyway, and this was before the formation of Bible.

The Bible is a late invention which is only authorative if you follow the Nicean Creed.

Not all those who call themselves Christians do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by holybandit

I want someone to read the Aramaic books and then the latin (Or any other translations) and tell us how big the translation problem is. Probaly been done..just havent seen a blog or something describing it.

---

You might be interested in the work the Jehova's Witnesses have done in building a concordance to the several versions/editions of the bible. Sadly, there's not a lot of info on the 'net about it, but your local library would probably have some of their work. They go back to original sources as much as possible, trying to re-translate more accurately.

Lots of folks dislike the Witnesses for their "knock-on-the-door" prostelytizing, but their research efforts are nothing to sneeze at.

I thought they were great. A few quotes such as "the last shall be first and the first last" showed them that I'd rather keep on sinning for many years, thank you. The lost sheep is the most important. So if they could keep me a place at the front of the que, I'll be right over. Just need to sin a bit more... :devil:

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

You might be interested in the work the Jehova's Witnesses have done in building a concordance to the several versions/editions of the bible. Sadly, there's not a lot of info on the 'net about it, but your local library would probably have some of their work. They go back to original sources as much as possible, trying to re-translate more accurately.

Lots of folks dislike the Witnesses for their "knock-on-the-door" prostelytizing, but their research efforts are nothing to sneeze at.

---

There have been several attempts at direct, accurate translation. The traditional Catholic Bible (forgot the name of the text) is actually largely defunct.

It's just no one tells the masses.

Gah, I hate to consider myself "The masses".

Im upper middle class damnit!!

:laugh4:

Ah, but are you part of the intellectual elite? Anyway, I remembered to tell you, didn't I?