Infallibility No guard Against Stupidity
Patrick Masih September 18, 2006
#301 Posted by teshah on September 26, 2006 7:01:41 pm
Re: # 293
I just read the writeup of echo and was surprised to find that he is a `Tableeghi` Mullah. I wonder if HP had appreciated this write-up. The basic problem with the Mullah is that he mixes up Islam with the self-styled Islamic Umma and the `submitters` with the `believers`.
I just read the writeup of echo and was surprised to find that he is a `Tableeghi` Mullah. I wonder if HP had appreciated this write-up. The basic problem with the Mullah is that he mixes up Islam with the self-styled Islamic Umma and the `submitters` with the `believers`.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#300 Posted by teshah on September 26, 2006 6:16:06 pm
Re: # 299
HP
Thank you dear for the appreciation if you meant my post at 294, but I think it is more probably for the write-up of echo at 293.
I have been pursuing your argumentation with masadi. I agree with you that it is useless to argue with the blind faith `submitters`.
BTW, why did not you take into consideration the delegation of powers of Allah, beside the prophet, to `Ulil amre minkum` (those who are actual rulers among you). The Islamic Allah seems to have kept on changing His tactics from utter nihilism to rank positivism as Musharraf is to day laying emphasis on `writ of government` which he had defied in the first instant to usurp power and become `ululamr` by toppling the existent `oolulamr`, Nawaz Shareef.
HP
Thank you dear for the appreciation if you meant my post at 294, but I think it is more probably for the write-up of echo at 293.
I have been pursuing your argumentation with masadi. I agree with you that it is useless to argue with the blind faith `submitters`.
BTW, why did not you take into consideration the delegation of powers of Allah, beside the prophet, to `Ulil amre minkum` (those who are actual rulers among you). The Islamic Allah seems to have kept on changing His tactics from utter nihilism to rank positivism as Musharraf is to day laying emphasis on `writ of government` which he had defied in the first instant to usurp power and become `ululamr` by toppling the existent `oolulamr`, Nawaz Shareef.
#299 Posted by PM on September 26, 2006 2:17:48 pm
echo:
thanks for posting that excellent write up @ 294!
thanks for posting that excellent write up @ 294!
#298 Posted by PM on September 26, 2006 12:14:19 pm
``Obey Allah and the messenger does not mean both are different, the explict verse in the Quran says obeying the messenger is identical to obeying Allah,``
dimwit, that`s EXACTLY what I`ve been saying for the past 100 psots. If they are identical, or to go with your interpretation, BECAUSE the two are identical, you are faced with the fact that the verse admonishes to do TWO IDENTICAL things. That is, it is being REDUNDANT.
Q.E.D!
Now, maybe English is the problem with you, so i`ll weigh my friend Mr. Webster in here:
Redundant: Etymology: Latin redundant-, redundans, present participle of redundare to overflow -- more at REDOUND
1 a : exceeding what is necessary or normal : SUPERFLUOUS b : characterized by or containing an excess; specifically : using more words than necessary c : characterized by similarity or repetition ..
Comprende? ....Never mind... ``What power has reason in the face of blind faith!`` -- Russell
dimwit, that`s EXACTLY what I`ve been saying for the past 100 psots. If they are identical, or to go with your interpretation, BECAUSE the two are identical, you are faced with the fact that the verse admonishes to do TWO IDENTICAL things. That is, it is being REDUNDANT.
Q.E.D!
Now, maybe English is the problem with you, so i`ll weigh my friend Mr. Webster in here:
Redundant: Etymology: Latin redundant-, redundans, present participle of redundare to overflow -- more at REDOUND
1 a : exceeding what is necessary or normal : SUPERFLUOUS b : characterized by or containing an excess; specifically : using more words than necessary c : characterized by similarity or repetition ..
Comprende? ....Never mind... ``What power has reason in the face of blind faith!`` -- Russell
#297 Posted by masadi on September 26, 2006 4:55:14 am
PM writes <<< Either way, I`m done trying to hold a reasonable debate with you. >>>
Of course you are because you don`t have a case, support of Ad Hominem against the prophet is your last straw because you don`t have a case against Islam. Obey Allah and the messenger does not mean both are different, the explict verse in the Quran says obeying the messenger is identical to obeying Allah, why is that so you ask, because the messenger-rasool of Allah means a mere conveyor of the message. Is that a redundancy saying believe Allah and his messenger, of course not, it is a necessity since Allah is not conveying or talking to everyone- that is the ONLY scenario in which obeying the messenger and obeying Allah would involve a redundancy.
You don`t get it because you have nothing but this last straw to hang on to, your entire case against Islam rests on just such childish reasoning and pointing fingers, so far we have not even approached the reliability of the sources that you pick and choose when you formulate your case against the prophet. Go figure, idiots claiming to be logicians, the most pathetically illogical system in the entire world that of Christianity and they point fingers at Islam, they destroy the whole world through colonization and unforseen barbarism and then call Muslims terrorists. Hypocrites plain and simple.
Of course you are because you don`t have a case, support of Ad Hominem against the prophet is your last straw because you don`t have a case against Islam. Obey Allah and the messenger does not mean both are different, the explict verse in the Quran says obeying the messenger is identical to obeying Allah, why is that so you ask, because the messenger-rasool of Allah means a mere conveyor of the message. Is that a redundancy saying believe Allah and his messenger, of course not, it is a necessity since Allah is not conveying or talking to everyone- that is the ONLY scenario in which obeying the messenger and obeying Allah would involve a redundancy.
You don`t get it because you have nothing but this last straw to hang on to, your entire case against Islam rests on just such childish reasoning and pointing fingers, so far we have not even approached the reliability of the sources that you pick and choose when you formulate your case against the prophet. Go figure, idiots claiming to be logicians, the most pathetically illogical system in the entire world that of Christianity and they point fingers at Islam, they destroy the whole world through colonization and unforseen barbarism and then call Muslims terrorists. Hypocrites plain and simple.
#296 Posted by PM on September 25, 2006 10:49:03 pm
if you read the context of 2.134 it is talking about various personalities of people who were similarly chosen as the prophet muhammed and it says what they do and do not do is not your concern
I am not concerned with whether the Qur`an does or doesn`t talk about ``personalities of people similarly chosen as Prohpet Muhammed``. Your quoting this verse, could amount just as easily to internal contradiction (cf ``Obey Allah and the Messenger`` -- NOT, i might add again, ``the Message.)
What you fail to see is that your `reasoning` is hoplessly circular, takes unproven premises for granted (such as the impossibiliity of internal contradiction) and continually begs the question, as above.
``You have managed to i) deny the meaning of words eg, the word messenger which MEANS something ``
Not at all! I am simply suggesting that the word ``Messenger`` is different from the word ``Message``, which could just as easily have been used to avoid ambiguity.
``...ii) support an illogical premise of Ad Hominem ``
You have yet to prove this, dimwit!
``...iii) Tried to teach me Islam and the Quran when you know next to nothing about it.``
Actually, I tired to teach you some logical reasoning skills. which you still know nothing about.
``... iv) tried to prove redundancy when following the messenger is a mere necessity to following God not a redundancy, given that God does not talk freely to every single human being- if he did THEN that would make the messenger redundant- how hard is that for you to understand?``
How hard is it for you to undertand the meaning of the word `redundant` and of the word ``AND`` -- which MAKES the statement ``Obey [X] AND [the only source of knowledge of X]`` an utter redundancy!??
I`ve already taken the trouble to illustrate the clear redundancy through allegory. If you still fail to see it, I am convinced that you are either deliberately and purposefully feinging miscomprehension, or are indeed dimwitted. Either way, I`m done trying to hold a reasonable debate with you.
I am not concerned with whether the Qur`an does or doesn`t talk about ``personalities of people similarly chosen as Prohpet Muhammed``. Your quoting this verse, could amount just as easily to internal contradiction (cf ``Obey Allah and the Messenger`` -- NOT, i might add again, ``the Message.)
What you fail to see is that your `reasoning` is hoplessly circular, takes unproven premises for granted (such as the impossibiliity of internal contradiction) and continually begs the question, as above.
``You have managed to i) deny the meaning of words eg, the word messenger which MEANS something ``
Not at all! I am simply suggesting that the word ``Messenger`` is different from the word ``Message``, which could just as easily have been used to avoid ambiguity.
``...ii) support an illogical premise of Ad Hominem ``
You have yet to prove this, dimwit!
``...iii) Tried to teach me Islam and the Quran when you know next to nothing about it.``
Actually, I tired to teach you some logical reasoning skills. which you still know nothing about.
``... iv) tried to prove redundancy when following the messenger is a mere necessity to following God not a redundancy, given that God does not talk freely to every single human being- if he did THEN that would make the messenger redundant- how hard is that for you to understand?``
How hard is it for you to undertand the meaning of the word `redundant` and of the word ``AND`` -- which MAKES the statement ``Obey [X] AND [the only source of knowledge of X]`` an utter redundancy!??
I`ve already taken the trouble to illustrate the clear redundancy through allegory. If you still fail to see it, I am convinced that you are either deliberately and purposefully feinging miscomprehension, or are indeed dimwitted. Either way, I`m done trying to hold a reasonable debate with you.
#295 Posted by masadi on September 25, 2006 9:52:55 pm
``[2.134] This is a people that have passed away; they shall have what they earned and you shall have what you earn, and you shall not be called upon to answer for what they did.``
PM writes <<< Great verse. But it does NOTHING to inform on the debate. It`s a classic Red Herring. >>>
You have reached new levels of illiteracy as far as reasoning goes. First you claim you don`t know much about Islam (which is a fact by the way you write), next you pontificate on it as if you`re an expert, next you say you know how to use logical arguments and you claim to use them to prove what? To prove an ILLOGICAL argumentation technique of ad hominem. Now Einstein if you read the context of 2.134 it is talking about various personalities of people who were similarly chosen as the prophet muhammed and it says what they do and do not do is not your concern, comprendey?
I have proven my point through multiple angles, all logically sound and what have you managed to do? You have managed to i) deny the meaning of words eg, the word messenger which MEANS something ii) support an illogical premise of Ad Hominem iii) Tried to teach me Islam and the Quran when you know next to nothing about it. iv) tried to prove redundancy when following the messenger is a mere necessity to following God not a redundancy, given that God does not talk freely to every single human being- if he did THEN that would make the messenger redundant- how hard is that for you to understand?
You are a classic example of what I used to call the mirasi mentality, you will keep singing your tune regardless of the facts or the weight of the evidence. Now don`t waste my time and keep busy with the BS you are feeding everyone here.
PM writes <<< Great verse. But it does NOTHING to inform on the debate. It`s a classic Red Herring. >>>
You have reached new levels of illiteracy as far as reasoning goes. First you claim you don`t know much about Islam (which is a fact by the way you write), next you pontificate on it as if you`re an expert, next you say you know how to use logical arguments and you claim to use them to prove what? To prove an ILLOGICAL argumentation technique of ad hominem. Now Einstein if you read the context of 2.134 it is talking about various personalities of people who were similarly chosen as the prophet muhammed and it says what they do and do not do is not your concern, comprendey?
I have proven my point through multiple angles, all logically sound and what have you managed to do? You have managed to i) deny the meaning of words eg, the word messenger which MEANS something ii) support an illogical premise of Ad Hominem iii) Tried to teach me Islam and the Quran when you know next to nothing about it. iv) tried to prove redundancy when following the messenger is a mere necessity to following God not a redundancy, given that God does not talk freely to every single human being- if he did THEN that would make the messenger redundant- how hard is that for you to understand?
You are a classic example of what I used to call the mirasi mentality, you will keep singing your tune regardless of the facts or the weight of the evidence. Now don`t waste my time and keep busy with the BS you are feeding everyone here.
#294 Posted by teshah on September 25, 2006 7:15:11 pm
Re: # 288
Excuse me I find no food for thought in the article stated to be written by a secular Jew. I wonder why people equate Islam with Muslims or Muslim Umma, spirit with the body. The Quran claiming to be the voice of Allah, the almighty, is never apologetic or defensive when the Muslims being humans can be any thing, from Momin to rank Munafiqin of various shades.The overwhelming majority of the Umma belongs to the latter type.
Again, when the Quran says ``La iqra fiddin`` it says this not as a commandment but as a statement recognizing the truth that there can be no compulsion in faith implying thereby that the truth is supreme. In this connection please see Sura 49, verse 14 of the Quran which says(I quote) `` The Arabs say: We believe, Say: Ye believe not, but rather say `We submit` for the faith has not yet entered your heart``. So surrendering to some faith under the `Law of necessity` cannot make one a believer but only a Muslim. Just ponder why the majority of the Umma are only `submitters` for various mundane considerations and not the believers in the true sense. So why talk of Muslim and Momin in the same breath as though these were the terms interchangeable.
Excuse me I find no food for thought in the article stated to be written by a secular Jew. I wonder why people equate Islam with Muslims or Muslim Umma, spirit with the body. The Quran claiming to be the voice of Allah, the almighty, is never apologetic or defensive when the Muslims being humans can be any thing, from Momin to rank Munafiqin of various shades.The overwhelming majority of the Umma belongs to the latter type.
Again, when the Quran says ``La iqra fiddin`` it says this not as a commandment but as a statement recognizing the truth that there can be no compulsion in faith implying thereby that the truth is supreme. In this connection please see Sura 49, verse 14 of the Quran which says(I quote) `` The Arabs say: We believe, Say: Ye believe not, but rather say `We submit` for the faith has not yet entered your heart``. So surrendering to some faith under the `Law of necessity` cannot make one a believer but only a Muslim. Just ponder why the majority of the Umma are only `submitters` for various mundane considerations and not the believers in the true sense. So why talk of Muslim and Momin in the same breath as though these were the terms interchangeable.
#293 Posted by echoboom on September 25, 2006 7:01:44 pm
and the best rebuttal to the Pope and the Western UN-civilisation.
The media has done a lot to demonize Islam and create hatred between Christians and Muslims. When you consider that the purpose of religion should be to bring peace, when war and hatred replace love in the name of religion, it should really make the thinking mind wonder. The American Muslim leader, Imam Warith Deen Mohammed said, ``When we read the Quran and Bible with proper understanding, we can clearly see that these great religious leaders were not divided one against the other.
Jesus not only supported the scripture that Moses taught, but he interpreted it and explained it so that the people could get more light on what Moses had taught them. When Prophet Muhammad of Arabia came behind Jesus, he did the same thing. He spoke from the scriptures that Jesus had left and he explained and interpreted what Jesus left. If our great heroes in religion have not divided themselves one against the other, and if they have shown us that they belonged to one unified family, why are we divided?``
Obviously the message that each religious leader brought supported each other from Moses to Jesus and to Muhammad. But the history of the followers of these religions has not been peaceful. Today Islam is being accused of the worst things. Along with that, Quranic verses are being deliberately taken out of context and misquoted to give the impression of endorsing war and the source for terrorist actions. This misquotes, out of context remarks and mistranslations do not in any way accurately reflect what the Islam teaches.
Pope Benedict XVI joins in this by repeating statements about the religion of Islam without any supporting reference to anything in the Qur’an or Islamic history.
Instead of speaking from actual teachings from the Qur’an, the Pope chose to quote from a 14th century Byzantine Christian Emperor Manuel Paleologos II – an Emperor who lived in the time of the final crusades and during the end of the 2,200 year-old Eastern Roman empire. Ironically, this Emperor comments about a supposed “command” from Muhammad to spread Islam by the sword, while being himself embroiled in many wars even against family members and also against Muslims.
The Pope even goes so far to repeatedly during his speech refer to this Emperor favorably as being erudite or scholarly. What is that telling us about the Pope if he thinks that way about an Emperor who makes false unsubstantiated claims about Islam? A fair question to ask is: why choose a remnant from the crusades to quote from and not the Qur’an, if indeed Islam endorses terrorism and violence? His Holiness, if you wanted to make a point to condemn attempts to “convince reasonable souls” using violence, threats, weapons, etc. as a means to bring them to faith, there is much in the rich history of Christianity to point to. There is even the recent example of the Christian nation America doing just that to bring Iraqi souls to have faith in “democracy”. Why pick the Islamic religion and bring in words from a 14th century remnant of the crusades? This in no way reflects the example of unity and understanding amongst religions as pointed out by Imam Warith Deen Mohammed in the messages brought to the world by Moses, Jesus and Muhammad.
His Holiness, if Islam teaches that God is transcendent above reason, it does not negate any of the wonderful qualities of the Supreme Being such as Most Generous, Most Beneficent, Most Loving, All Knowing, etc. Nor does it mean that reason should be abandoned and negated in God’s universe. It is just stating that the Being who created us all has no limitations, no defects, no weaknesses and cannot be limited by anything in creation. Especially for human beings Islam teaches that true spiritual development cannot be attained without true rational development. Rational development is an intrinsic prerequisite to the proper development of the human being. This rational development is fueled by knowledge. Islam places great importance on knowledge to the point where the ignorance of an ignorant man is considered to be worse than the sins of a sinful man as captured by these words from the Prophet of Islam:
The Prophet said: The ignorance of an ignorant man is more harmful than the transgression of a sinner. On the Resurrection Day a man will be raised to the rank of nearness to God in proportion to his intellect. The Prophet said: Nobody earns a better thing than intellect. It shows him the path towards guidance and saves him from destruction…When his intellect becomes perfect he obeys God and disobeys his enemy the Satan. The Prophet said: Have you not heard the words of the sinners in Hell: “Had we heard and understood, we would not have been the inmates of Hell.” –al Ghazali, Ihya Ulum-Id-Din
So in Islam we do not believe in an existence for human beings absent of reason.
I will list some accusations made against Islam (indeed there are many) by leading Christians and Christian Zionists starting with the most recent remarks from The Pope and then I will respond to them: 1. “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`.`` Pope Benedict XVI quotes Christian Emperor Manuel Pale
2. “Islam is simply ``a religion of war.`` You may protest that your Islamic neighbor down the street could not possibly be a threat. Free Congress says you should bear in mind that ``there are lax Islamics.” Or to put it another way, the peaceful individual Muslims are out of step with their religion. They are outsiders looking in.” Statement by the Free Congress.
3. Franklin Graham, fundamentalist preacher son of Billy Graham, pronounced on NBC Nightly News November 16, 2001: ``The God of Islam is not the same God. He`s not the son of God of the Christian or Judeo-Christian faith. It is a different God, and I believe it is a very evil and wicked religion.``
4. Pat Robertson, said on the ``700 Club`` television program on February 21, 2002 that ``Islam is not a peaceful religion that wants to coexist. They want to coexist until they can control, dominate and then, if need be, destroy.``
5. ``Nobel literature prize winner Elias Cannetti has defined Islam as ``a religion of war – literally a killer belief.`` ``Islam has made war on Christendom and Christians since it first swept out of Arabia to conquer much of the Christian Mediterranean world.``
6. Ann Coulter boldly wrote that the US should conquer the entire Muslim world and convert them to Christianity. She pronounced these words of war and conquest with no criticism or outcry by “turn the other cheek” Christians. In fact she is loved and encouraged by them.
7. Conservative Baptist Evangelist, Jerry Falwell, in an interview on the CBS news program 60 Minutes (October 6, 2002) said,`` I think Muhammad was a terrorist. I read enough of the history of his life written by both Muslims and non-Muslims, (to know) that he was a - a violent man, a man of war,``
Not to be outdone by the Christians and fueling the flames of hatred, especially Muslim-Christian hatred have been leaders amongst the Jews. Israel now enjoys major support and major endorsement by more than 30 million Christian Zionists and Evangelicals who believe that Islam is their enemy and that they must support Israel against Muslims. In their fundamentalist vision of the world, the Evangelicals see supporting Israel, right or wrong, as the best way to fulfill -- and even speed up -- the Bible`s doomsday plan for the world. The founding of Israel in 1948 was the first step in the Biblically-mandated series of events leading to Armageddon and the return of Jesus. They are preparing for a period of extreme violence costing millions of lives including many Jews. Those who remain will embrace Jesus as Savior.
The Israelis are enjoying this because despite the Christians claim to a future beneficial outcome for Christians, the Israelis are reaping the benefits TODAY of strong Christian support against their enemies. They have even predicted a future Christian crusade against Muslims as in the following statement:
Quote: “Within a few years a Christian crusade against Islam will be launched, which will be the major event of this millennium...” Benny Elon, Israeli Tourism Minister and high level envoy http://www.thedailystar.net/2003/05/29/d30529150280.htm
At the same time many in the leadership of Judaism don’t see the world of Christianity as a threat. They view the Christian world as a civilization that has already been conquered with their only remaining challenge being the Muslim world. This is reflected in the following statement: “The Jews are not a nation, neither a religion,” he said. “They are a civilization, and they have their civilizing mission. They cannot tolerate the competing civilization of Islam, as they could not tolerate Christendom or Communism. That is why the war with Islam is unavoidable.” Yehuda Bauer, director of the Holocaust Memorial Institute Yad va-Shem in Jerusalem http://www.israelshamir.net/English/midasears.htm
The turmoil brought on by hatred and wars between Christians and Muslims works well for these Jews. Without lifting a finger they gleefully enjoy how the Christian Zionists are fighting Muslims for them. Through the ownership of the world`s media they also help in the propaganda war against Islam by painting it to be a religion of violence and terrorism. In response to these charges and which religion is the religion of violence and war, I would like to mention that ``people who live in glass houses should never throw stones.``
It was not Muslims who went to Christian lands to wage 8 successive Crusades to take their land away from them as directed by their Islamic leaders as Christians were, following the direction of their Popes. It was not Islam whose leadership claimed that the purpose for the first crusade was (1) to rescue their brothers of the faith in the East from Muslim hordes and (2) liberate Jerusalem. But lo and behold then by the second crusade their Christian brothers in the East – who supposedly needed rescuing from the Muslims – joined the Muslims to fight against the crusaders due to the savage, barbarous and cruel behavior of their “rescuers”.
It was not Islam that went conquering people all over the world and colonizing them as Christians did forcing defenseless people to embrace Christianity after being militarily defeated by the more powerful Christian armies of Europe. These actions are being repeated in this time with the military conquest of Iraq by America and Britain only to be followed by enthusiastic Christian Zionists seeking to convert Muslims to Christianity. ``The opportunity for broadcast expansion in post-war Iraq is phenomenal,`` enthused Don Black, Vice President of In Touch Ministries in Atlanta, in an interview with the web site Salon. Samaritan`s Purse, a relief headed by Franklin Graham, is another group planning to proselytize the people of Iraq. All these groups are doing it under the guise of providing aid to the Iraqi people. Of course this is strongly encouraged and supported by the Bush administration which claims “it`s not the administration`s responsibility to determine which groups can provide aid to Iraq.” http://sci.rutgers.edu/forum/showthread.php?t=32135
It was not Islam, whose Holy Book teaches “make no graven images” yet portrays the son of God as a Caucasian crucified savior on a cross for all the races in the world to worship. Then to also portray his virgin mother, apostles, and all the saints as Caucasians, belonging to the ‘divine white race’ for all to revere and love. This fostering of white supremacy in religious form caused Caucasians to feel superior over the non-white ‘un-Godly’ races thereby justifying the colonization and subjugation of other human beings. As a result of worshipping a Caucasian-looking God, it caused non-white races to feel inferior and Caucasians to feel superior, bringing about serious racial inferiority complexes among the non-white races and inspiring the rise of cruel inhumane organizations like the Ku Klux Klan, that committed lynching, murders and other racial atrocities. It was not Islam that encouraged the slave trade in Africa declaring it was OK because the heathen Africans were having their souls saved by being converted to Christianity. It was not Islam that cursed a whole race of people and described them as inferior, children of Ham because of the color of their skin. Then to add further humiliation and deepen racial tensions have this story embellished showing ridiculous origins of African features as done by Rabbis in the Jewish Talmud. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3435039175602962781&q=Black+Slave
It was not Islam which caused the decimation of over 50% of the population of the Congo as was done by the Belgian Christian King Leopold (11 million massacred out of a population of 20 million).
It was not Islam that attempted to Frenchify Algeria at the cost of over a million Algerians (which at the time represented over 10% of the population) as Christians from France did to this defenseless country in Africa.
It was not an Islamic nation that uttered the arrogant and conquering statement ``the sun never sets on the British Empire`` as was done by a leading conquering Christian nation.
It was not Islam which dominated and conquered the world, not as a result of superior ideas and excellent examples of humanity, but as a result of superior weapons of war possessed by Christian nations used against weaker nations, as we see being done by Christian America today against Iraq and Afghanistan, and tomorrow against Iran, Syria and other Muslim countries. It was not Islam whose history is mired with constant cycles of vicious wars and hostility as experienced for Centuries by the Christian nations of France, England, Spain, Portugal, Germany, Russia and others. It was not Islam that went to the Far East and conquered Asians and as part of the Asians’ humiliation and subjugation introduced addictive drugs into their societies, forcing those countries to fight Opium wars to free themselves from Christian tyranny.
It was not Islam that caused the misery, suffering and whole scale deaths of millions with mass destruction of cities like the Christian nations did in WWI and WWII. During one night of February 13, 1945, the allied armies Britain and US bombed the city of Dresden in Germany, and it is estimated that as many as 350,000 - 600,000 victims were incinerated beyond being identifiable or even recognizable as human remains in that Holocaust. Only 35,000 could be identified. Then the Christians culminated this death and destruction by dropping atomic bombs on Japanese cities killing an estimated 115,000 victims, and many later with radiation sickness, disfigurement and permanent damage to thousands of innocent people. It was not Islam that persecuted and murdered thinkers and scientists, like Galileo, Copernicus and the great female scientist Hypatia in the worst way because they dared to state their scientific findings that differed from Catholicism. It was not Islam that defied scientific facts and insisted for years that the universe was Geo-centric rather than Helio-centric simply because Muhammad lived on earth as Christians did with Christ and persecuted anyone who dared to say different. During the recent invasion and occupation of Iraq, US occupation forces detained more than 600 top Iraqi scientists, whose fate is totally unknown. Before this invasion, an American scientist, David Albright, wrote an article ``IRAQ: Resettle the Scientists,`` in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists (page 17, Jan/Feb 1998) foretelling the US plans.
It was not Islam that kept its followers in perpetual ignorance, superstition and barbaric filth during a period of time known as the Dark Ages. It was not Islam that allowed its people to live in the most un-hygienic ways, discouraging cleanliness and baths and causing them to suffer Bubonic Plagues and other life-threatening diseases for centuries. This Bubonic Plague was responsible for decimating 25% of the European population at that time which was approximately 137 million people. It was not Islam that instituted the Inquisition that punished millions of ``heretics`` for several centuries who did not go along with the official version of Christianity with imprisonment, torture and death. Then in the 1500’s, the Christian Spaniards brought the Inquisition to the Americas demanding instant conversion by the Indians and death to any Indian daring to refuse.
It was not Islam that caused people to flee religious persecutions as Christianity did in Europe causing Europeans to find and establish religious freedom in a new land. Then due to the horrible, inhumane experience with Christianity the country formed in the new world said “never again”. Never again would we let the ignorance and cruelties of the Christian religion rule our government. We insist and we legislate that there will always be a separation of church and state!
It was not Islam that encouraged the ethnic cleansing of Native American Indians and ruthless theft of their lands as done by Christians from England, France and Spain. The number of deaths caused by European Christians on poor hapless American Indians was upwards of 250 million. It is not Islam whose countries are decaying from within because of high crime rates, immorality, corrupt leaders, high divorce rates, social unrest, rampant accepted homosexuality like in Sodom and Gomorrah, destruction of the family, extreme selfishness, greed and other ills that plague Christian nations today.
It is not Islam which has championed the cause of another people`s religion identifying them as ``God`s chosen people`` and then provided the means for these people to steal Palestine and ethnically cleanse innocent Palestinians including fellow Christians. The war crimes committed, barbarism, cruel and inhumane treatment of Palestinians and the Israelis’ in brazen defiance of UN resolutions are rewarded by the most powerful Christian nation in the world with free money, undying support and special consideration.
It is not an Islamic nation that has imposed sanctions on another nation that has caused deaths of mainly innocent children in the range of 4000-5000 per month. Then to add insult to injury threaten and attack that nation – killing more than 250,000 CIVILIANS -- on false pretense causing millions more to live in squalor and misery as the great Christian nation of America is doing to Iraq. Now that the WMD claim for attacking Iraq proves to be false, this Christian nation changes the rules and claims that the WMD reason to attack Iraq does not matter.
It was not an Islamic nation that has brutally massacred more than 20,000 innocent Afghans and threw the Geneva Convention out the window in their inhumane, barbaric treatment of Afghan prisoners as the great Christian nation of America has in its false war on terrorism against Afghanistan. While the world, including Islamic nations, mourned the innocent deaths of about 3000 Americans on 911, the great Christian nation of America degrades the dignity of human beings by describing the 20,000 innocent Afghans killed as collateral damage.
It is not an Islamic nation that already has a plan mapped out known as A Project for the New American Century (PNAC) whose National Security Strategy - promulgated as late as September 2002 - now includes pre-emptive attacks on possible future competitors first, assuming regional hegemony by force of arms in the Middle East, controlling energy resources around the globe, maintaining a permanent war strategy, and more as Christian America does. It is easy to surmise that Christian America is after oil, but not one of the Muslim nations, not even Iraq, has denied America the purchase of its oil. The Christian nation of America does not care. It is bent on pursuing a warlike imperial foreign policy and is chomping at the bit to attack Iran next.
Need I say more? I could go on and on.
While the Zionists and Christian Zionists write and talk about Islam being warlike, the above information proves that Christians are the ones who are truly warlike. More evil has been committed in the name of Christianity than has been committed by any other religion in human history. Their history has been one of a people who have “the mark of the beast” in their hands or actions. But the elite Jews who are rejoicing and reaping the benefits of the turmoil caused by Christians are the ones with the “mark of the beast” in their foreheads. After all they gave the Europeans their version of Christianity and even boast about it as in the following: Quote:
We conquered you as no empire of yours ever subjugated Africa or Asia. And we did it all without armies, without bullets, without blood or turmoil, without force of any kind. We did it solely by the irresistible might of our spirit, with ideas, with propaganda.
We made you the willing and unconscious bearers of our mission to the whole world, to the barbarous races of the earth, to the countless unborn generations. Without fully understanding what we were doing to you, you became the agents at large of our racial tradition, carrying our gospel to the unexplored ends of the earth.
Marcus Eli Ravage, Jewish Scholar and Official Rothschilds Biographer http://www.ety.com/HRP/leaflts/ravage/ravage1.htm
Muslims will never say, as some Christians do, that the evils done by Christians were due to the teachings of the Noble Christ. Muslims will never blame good God conscious Christians for those evils. No, Muslims will put the blame where it belongs and that is on evil people who used the name of Christ to accomplish their wrongs. Evil men and women dirtied the name of Christ with their evil deeds. Now these same evil, war mongering, hypocritical false people are trying to smear and falsify Islam. They are at it again. They want war and they are using the name of Christ and smearing the name of Muhammad (saaw) to achieve it.
The truth is that there is no “command” in Islam about spreading the religion by the sword. There is nothing in Islam that is known as “holy” Jihad or kill the infidel concept. Most people who state that make those claims in a vacuum or deliberately take words out of context to support their claims. They are vicious lies done to demonize Islam and cause hatred. It is especially sad to see these words coming from the leader of Catholicism when the message of Jesus was one of truth, love and kindness. The Qur’an on the contrary is rich with verses showing tolerance and understanding for others of different religions. Rather than an attitude of war, air of superiority and degradation of good people of other faiths, the Qur’an is resplendent with verses guaranteeing good non-Muslims rewards from God for their goodness. Here are a few:
2: 62. Those who believe (in the Qur’an) And those who follow the Jewish (Scriptures) And the Christians and the Sabians, - ANY who believe in God And the Last Day, And work righteousness, Shall have their reward With their Lord: on them Shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve. “They are not all the same; among the followers of the scripture, there are those who are righteous. They recite God`s revelations through the night, and they fall prostrate.”
”They believe in God and the Last Day, they advocate righteousness and forbid evil, and they hasten to do righteous works. These are the righteous.” (3:113-114)
If any do deeds of righteousness,- be they male or female - and have faith, they will enter Heaven, and not the least injustice will be done to them. [4:124].
As for a “command” to spread the religion by the sword, the words of the Qur’an condemns that idea and strongly so. The idea of no compulsion in religion and freedom of conscious choice pervades the Qur’an from beginning to end. Here are just a few verses reflecting that:
Invite (all) to the Way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious: for thy Lord knoweth best, who have strayed from His Path, and who receive guidance. [16:125]
``...There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is here forth distinct from error...`` [2:256]
``Say (Muhammad it is) truth from the Lord of all. Whosoever will, let him believe, and whosoever will, LET him disbelieve.`` [18:29]
“If it had been thy Lord`s will, they would all have believed,- all who are on earth! Wilt thou then compel mankind, against their will, to believe?” [10:99].
There is much propaganda about Islam and the “command” to spread it by the sword, but Muslims are still waiting to find out where our religion teaches that. Today Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world especially after 9-11. It should be obvious to everyone that despite all of the negative publicity and association of Islam with terrorism, there are people finding it to be more attractive than any other religion in the world. More and more people are finding out the truth about Islam and converting because they became curious and decided to find out more about this ``terrorist`` religion that they keep hearing so much about. Where is the sword in all this? Who is pointing the sword at the doctors, scientists, clergy, professionals and common people to force them to become Muslims?
The truth is Islam has always spread through contact with Muslims and peaceful introduction to the teachings of Islam as it is spreading today. Not military warrior crusading Emperors, but peaceful thinkers and scholars from around the world know this and many of them have written about it as in the following:
1. Historian De Lacy O`Leary has to say on the subject of “the sword of Islam”.
“History makes it clear however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myths that historians have ever repeated” (Islam at the Crossroads, London, 1923 p. 8)
2. From Israeli Journalist, humanitarian and former Knesset member, Uri Avnery:
“Muslim Spain was a paradise for the Jews, and there has never been a Jewish Holocaust in the Muslim world. Even pogroms were extremely rare. Muhammad decreed that the ``Peoples of the Book`` (Jews and Christians) be treated tolerantly, subject to conditions that were incomparably more liberal than those in contemporary Europe.
The Muslims never imposed their religion by force on Jews and Christians, as shown by the fact that almost all the Jews expelled from Catholic Spain settled in the Muslim countries and flourished there.
After centuries of Muslim rule, Greeks and Serbs remained thoroughly Christian. When peace is established between Israel and the Arab world, the poisonous fruits of anti-Semitism will most probably disappear from the Arab world (as will the poisonous fruits of Arab-hating in our society.)”
3. From Mahatma Ghandi, Hindu and liberator of India from British colonial rule:
`I become more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the scheme for life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet, the scrupulous regard for his pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and his own mission. These and not the sword, carried everything before them and surmounted every trouble.` (M.K. Gandhi, Young India, 1924).
4. From an Atheist, Mathematician and Philosopher Bertrand Russell: I have always been told throughout my youth of the fanaticism of the Mohammedans, and especially that story of the destruction of the library at Alexandria. Well, I believed all these stories, but when I came to look into the history of the times concerned, I had a great many shocks. In the first place, I discovered that the library of Alexandria was destroyed a great many times, and the first time was by Julius Caesar. But the last time was supposed to have been by the Mohammedans, and for this I found no justification whatsoever. Nor did I find that the Mohammedans were fanatical. The contests between Catholics, Nestorians, and Monophysites were bitter and persecuting to the last degree. But the Mohammedans, when they conquered Christian countries, allowed the Christians to be perfectly free, provided they pay a tribute. The only penalty for being a Christian was that you had to pay a tribute that Mohammedans did not have to pay. This proved completely successful, and the immense majority of the population became Mohammedans, but not through any fanaticism on the part of the Mohammedans. On the contrary they, in the earlier centuries of their power, represented free thought and tolerance to a degree that the Christians did not emulate until quite recent times.
Bertrand Russell (Eng. philosopher, mathematician, 1872-1970): ``Reading History As It Is Never Written`` [1959]
5. Sir George Bernard Shaw, Writer:
`I have always held the religion of Muhammad in high estimation because of its wonderful vitality. It is the only religion which appears to me to possess that assimilating capacity to the changing phase of existence which can make itself appeal to every age. I have studied him - that wonderful man - and in my opinion far from being an anti-Christ, he must be called the savior of humanity. I believe that if a man like him were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world, he would succeed in solving its problems in a way that would bring it the much needed peace and happiness: I have prophesied about the faith of Muhammad that it would be acceptable to the Europe of tomorrow as it is beginning to be acceptable to the Europe of today. (G.B. Shaw, The Genuine Islam)
As the leader of Catholicism in the world, the Pope should learn the truth about Islam and not single out hateful false statements about the religion of 1.5 billion people to publicize. Rather than praise the ignorance of an Emperor embroiled in war against Muslims as being erudite, he should learn the truth about Islam or go to truly erudite peaceful scholars as listed above to quote from. This would be more in line with following the noble example of Christ in spreading love, peace and happiness in this world. ``Strive as in a race to achieve the goal of excellence in all that you do.``
For real insights visit: http://www.geocities.com/mewatch99/
September 25,2006 Regards, Nashid http://www.crescentandcross.com/index.php?page=articles&author=miscellaneous&subpage1=nashid1
OK zeemax (#285),
You can take off the mask of humanity and join other low-lives.
You can now stop blaming US for bombing Iraqi civilians, or Israel for destroying Lebanese homes. You are no different from them, as you have shown.
Those who play with joysticks or hide behind tanks are all wimps and low-lives. They will face their Creator ony day, and so will you. You won`t be able to hide behind them, nor will they be able to hide behind you. And all of you will be pointed out by thousands of one-year olds that day.
You have made your intentions clear. Now thank god for not giving you the means to carry them out. ``Means`` is what separates you from those you so severely condemn.
Voices
09/25/06
Islam versus Christianity – A reply to The Pope!
Nashid
The media has done a lot to demonize Islam and create hatred between Christians and Muslims. When you consider that the purpose of religion should be to bring peace, when war and hatred replace love in the name of religion, it should really make the thinking mind wonder. The American Muslim leader, Imam Warith Deen Mohammed said, ``When we read the Quran and Bible with proper understanding, we can clearly see that these great religious leaders were not divided one against the other.
Jesus not only supported the scripture that Moses taught, but he interpreted it and explained it so that the people could get more light on what Moses had taught them. When Prophet Muhammad of Arabia came behind Jesus, he did the same thing. He spoke from the scriptures that Jesus had left and he explained and interpreted what Jesus left. If our great heroes in religion have not divided themselves one against the other, and if they have shown us that they belonged to one unified family, why are we divided?``
Obviously the message that each religious leader brought supported each other from Moses to Jesus and to Muhammad. But the history of the followers of these religions has not been peaceful. Today Islam is being accused of the worst things. Along with that, Quranic verses are being deliberately taken out of context and misquoted to give the impression of endorsing war and the source for terrorist actions. This misquotes, out of context remarks and mistranslations do not in any way accurately reflect what the Islam teaches.
Pope Benedict XVI joins in this by repeating statements about the religion of Islam without any supporting reference to anything in the Qur’an or Islamic history.
Instead of speaking from actual teachings from the Qur’an, the Pope chose to quote from a 14th century Byzantine Christian Emperor Manuel Paleologos II – an Emperor who lived in the time of the final crusades and during the end of the 2,200 year-old Eastern Roman empire. Ironically, this Emperor comments about a supposed “command” from Muhammad to spread Islam by the sword, while being himself embroiled in many wars even against family members and also against Muslims.
The Pope even goes so far to repeatedly during his speech refer to this Emperor favorably as being erudite or scholarly. What is that telling us about the Pope if he thinks that way about an Emperor who makes false unsubstantiated claims about Islam? A fair question to ask is: why choose a remnant from the crusades to quote from and not the Qur’an, if indeed Islam endorses terrorism and violence? His Holiness, if you wanted to make a point to condemn attempts to “convince reasonable souls” using violence, threats, weapons, etc. as a means to bring them to faith, there is much in the rich history of Christianity to point to. There is even the recent example of the Christian nation America doing just that to bring Iraqi souls to have faith in “democracy”. Why pick the Islamic religion and bring in words from a 14th century remnant of the crusades? This in no way reflects the example of unity and understanding amongst religions as pointed out by Imam Warith Deen Mohammed in the messages brought to the world by Moses, Jesus and Muhammad.
His Holiness, if Islam teaches that God is transcendent above reason, it does not negate any of the wonderful qualities of the Supreme Being such as Most Generous, Most Beneficent, Most Loving, All Knowing, etc. Nor does it mean that reason should be abandoned and negated in God’s universe. It is just stating that the Being who created us all has no limitations, no defects, no weaknesses and cannot be limited by anything in creation. Especially for human beings Islam teaches that true spiritual development cannot be attained without true rational development. Rational development is an intrinsic prerequisite to the proper development of the human being. This rational development is fueled by knowledge. Islam places great importance on knowledge to the point where the ignorance of an ignorant man is considered to be worse than the sins of a sinful man as captured by these words from the Prophet of Islam:
The Prophet said: The ignorance of an ignorant man is more harmful than the transgression of a sinner. On the Resurrection Day a man will be raised to the rank of nearness to God in proportion to his intellect. The Prophet said: Nobody earns a better thing than intellect. It shows him the path towards guidance and saves him from destruction…When his intellect becomes perfect he obeys God and disobeys his enemy the Satan. The Prophet said: Have you not heard the words of the sinners in Hell: “Had we heard and understood, we would not have been the inmates of Hell.” –al Ghazali, Ihya Ulum-Id-Din
So in Islam we do not believe in an existence for human beings absent of reason.
I will list some accusations made against Islam (indeed there are many) by leading Christians and Christian Zionists starting with the most recent remarks from The Pope and then I will respond to them: 1. “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`.`` Pope Benedict XVI quotes Christian Emperor Manuel Pale
2. “Islam is simply ``a religion of war.`` You may protest that your Islamic neighbor down the street could not possibly be a threat. Free Congress says you should bear in mind that ``there are lax Islamics.” Or to put it another way, the peaceful individual Muslims are out of step with their religion. They are outsiders looking in.” Statement by the Free Congress.
3. Franklin Graham, fundamentalist preacher son of Billy Graham, pronounced on NBC Nightly News November 16, 2001: ``The God of Islam is not the same God. He`s not the son of God of the Christian or Judeo-Christian faith. It is a different God, and I believe it is a very evil and wicked religion.``
4. Pat Robertson, said on the ``700 Club`` television program on February 21, 2002 that ``Islam is not a peaceful religion that wants to coexist. They want to coexist until they can control, dominate and then, if need be, destroy.``
5. ``Nobel literature prize winner Elias Cannetti has defined Islam as ``a religion of war – literally a killer belief.`` ``Islam has made war on Christendom and Christians since it first swept out of Arabia to conquer much of the Christian Mediterranean world.``
6. Ann Coulter boldly wrote that the US should conquer the entire Muslim world and convert them to Christianity. She pronounced these words of war and conquest with no criticism or outcry by “turn the other cheek” Christians. In fact she is loved and encouraged by them.
7. Conservative Baptist Evangelist, Jerry Falwell, in an interview on the CBS news program 60 Minutes (October 6, 2002) said,`` I think Muhammad was a terrorist. I read enough of the history of his life written by both Muslims and non-Muslims, (to know) that he was a - a violent man, a man of war,``
Not to be outdone by the Christians and fueling the flames of hatred, especially Muslim-Christian hatred have been leaders amongst the Jews. Israel now enjoys major support and major endorsement by more than 30 million Christian Zionists and Evangelicals who believe that Islam is their enemy and that they must support Israel against Muslims. In their fundamentalist vision of the world, the Evangelicals see supporting Israel, right or wrong, as the best way to fulfill -- and even speed up -- the Bible`s doomsday plan for the world. The founding of Israel in 1948 was the first step in the Biblically-mandated series of events leading to Armageddon and the return of Jesus. They are preparing for a period of extreme violence costing millions of lives including many Jews. Those who remain will embrace Jesus as Savior.
The Israelis are enjoying this because despite the Christians claim to a future beneficial outcome for Christians, the Israelis are reaping the benefits TODAY of strong Christian support against their enemies. They have even predicted a future Christian crusade against Muslims as in the following statement:
Quote: “Within a few years a Christian crusade against Islam will be launched, which will be the major event of this millennium...” Benny Elon, Israeli Tourism Minister and high level envoy http://www.thedailystar.net/2003/05/29/d30529150280.htm
At the same time many in the leadership of Judaism don’t see the world of Christianity as a threat. They view the Christian world as a civilization that has already been conquered with their only remaining challenge being the Muslim world. This is reflected in the following statement: “The Jews are not a nation, neither a religion,” he said. “They are a civilization, and they have their civilizing mission. They cannot tolerate the competing civilization of Islam, as they could not tolerate Christendom or Communism. That is why the war with Islam is unavoidable.” Yehuda Bauer, director of the Holocaust Memorial Institute Yad va-Shem in Jerusalem http://www.israelshamir.net/English/midasears.htm
The turmoil brought on by hatred and wars between Christians and Muslims works well for these Jews. Without lifting a finger they gleefully enjoy how the Christian Zionists are fighting Muslims for them. Through the ownership of the world`s media they also help in the propaganda war against Islam by painting it to be a religion of violence and terrorism. In response to these charges and which religion is the religion of violence and war, I would like to mention that ``people who live in glass houses should never throw stones.``
It was not Muslims who went to Christian lands to wage 8 successive Crusades to take their land away from them as directed by their Islamic leaders as Christians were, following the direction of their Popes. It was not Islam whose leadership claimed that the purpose for the first crusade was (1) to rescue their brothers of the faith in the East from Muslim hordes and (2) liberate Jerusalem. But lo and behold then by the second crusade their Christian brothers in the East – who supposedly needed rescuing from the Muslims – joined the Muslims to fight against the crusaders due to the savage, barbarous and cruel behavior of their “rescuers”.
It was not Islam that went conquering people all over the world and colonizing them as Christians did forcing defenseless people to embrace Christianity after being militarily defeated by the more powerful Christian armies of Europe. These actions are being repeated in this time with the military conquest of Iraq by America and Britain only to be followed by enthusiastic Christian Zionists seeking to convert Muslims to Christianity. ``The opportunity for broadcast expansion in post-war Iraq is phenomenal,`` enthused Don Black, Vice President of In Touch Ministries in Atlanta, in an interview with the web site Salon. Samaritan`s Purse, a relief headed by Franklin Graham, is another group planning to proselytize the people of Iraq. All these groups are doing it under the guise of providing aid to the Iraqi people. Of course this is strongly encouraged and supported by the Bush administration which claims “it`s not the administration`s responsibility to determine which groups can provide aid to Iraq.” http://sci.rutgers.edu/forum/showthread.php?t=32135
It was not Islam, whose Holy Book teaches “make no graven images” yet portrays the son of God as a Caucasian crucified savior on a cross for all the races in the world to worship. Then to also portray his virgin mother, apostles, and all the saints as Caucasians, belonging to the ‘divine white race’ for all to revere and love. This fostering of white supremacy in religious form caused Caucasians to feel superior over the non-white ‘un-Godly’ races thereby justifying the colonization and subjugation of other human beings. As a result of worshipping a Caucasian-looking God, it caused non-white races to feel inferior and Caucasians to feel superior, bringing about serious racial inferiority complexes among the non-white races and inspiring the rise of cruel inhumane organizations like the Ku Klux Klan, that committed lynching, murders and other racial atrocities. It was not Islam that encouraged the slave trade in Africa declaring it was OK because the heathen Africans were having their souls saved by being converted to Christianity. It was not Islam that cursed a whole race of people and described them as inferior, children of Ham because of the color of their skin. Then to add further humiliation and deepen racial tensions have this story embellished showing ridiculous origins of African features as done by Rabbis in the Jewish Talmud. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3435039175602962781&q=Black+Slave
It was not Islam which caused the decimation of over 50% of the population of the Congo as was done by the Belgian Christian King Leopold (11 million massacred out of a population of 20 million).
It was not Islam that attempted to Frenchify Algeria at the cost of over a million Algerians (which at the time represented over 10% of the population) as Christians from France did to this defenseless country in Africa.
It was not an Islamic nation that uttered the arrogant and conquering statement ``the sun never sets on the British Empire`` as was done by a leading conquering Christian nation.
It was not Islam which dominated and conquered the world, not as a result of superior ideas and excellent examples of humanity, but as a result of superior weapons of war possessed by Christian nations used against weaker nations, as we see being done by Christian America today against Iraq and Afghanistan, and tomorrow against Iran, Syria and other Muslim countries. It was not Islam whose history is mired with constant cycles of vicious wars and hostility as experienced for Centuries by the Christian nations of France, England, Spain, Portugal, Germany, Russia and others. It was not Islam that went to the Far East and conquered Asians and as part of the Asians’ humiliation and subjugation introduced addictive drugs into their societies, forcing those countries to fight Opium wars to free themselves from Christian tyranny.
It was not Islam that caused the misery, suffering and whole scale deaths of millions with mass destruction of cities like the Christian nations did in WWI and WWII. During one night of February 13, 1945, the allied armies Britain and US bombed the city of Dresden in Germany, and it is estimated that as many as 350,000 - 600,000 victims were incinerated beyond being identifiable or even recognizable as human remains in that Holocaust. Only 35,000 could be identified. Then the Christians culminated this death and destruction by dropping atomic bombs on Japanese cities killing an estimated 115,000 victims, and many later with radiation sickness, disfigurement and permanent damage to thousands of innocent people. It was not Islam that persecuted and murdered thinkers and scientists, like Galileo, Copernicus and the great female scientist Hypatia in the worst way because they dared to state their scientific findings that differed from Catholicism. It was not Islam that defied scientific facts and insisted for years that the universe was Geo-centric rather than Helio-centric simply because Muhammad lived on earth as Christians did with Christ and persecuted anyone who dared to say different. During the recent invasion and occupation of Iraq, US occupation forces detained more than 600 top Iraqi scientists, whose fate is totally unknown. Before this invasion, an American scientist, David Albright, wrote an article ``IRAQ: Resettle the Scientists,`` in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists (page 17, Jan/Feb 1998) foretelling the US plans.
It was not Islam that kept its followers in perpetual ignorance, superstition and barbaric filth during a period of time known as the Dark Ages. It was not Islam that allowed its people to live in the most un-hygienic ways, discouraging cleanliness and baths and causing them to suffer Bubonic Plagues and other life-threatening diseases for centuries. This Bubonic Plague was responsible for decimating 25% of the European population at that time which was approximately 137 million people. It was not Islam that instituted the Inquisition that punished millions of ``heretics`` for several centuries who did not go along with the official version of Christianity with imprisonment, torture and death. Then in the 1500’s, the Christian Spaniards brought the Inquisition to the Americas demanding instant conversion by the Indians and death to any Indian daring to refuse.
It was not Islam that caused people to flee religious persecutions as Christianity did in Europe causing Europeans to find and establish religious freedom in a new land. Then due to the horrible, inhumane experience with Christianity the country formed in the new world said “never again”. Never again would we let the ignorance and cruelties of the Christian religion rule our government. We insist and we legislate that there will always be a separation of church and state!
It was not Islam that encouraged the ethnic cleansing of Native American Indians and ruthless theft of their lands as done by Christians from England, France and Spain. The number of deaths caused by European Christians on poor hapless American Indians was upwards of 250 million. It is not Islam whose countries are decaying from within because of high crime rates, immorality, corrupt leaders, high divorce rates, social unrest, rampant accepted homosexuality like in Sodom and Gomorrah, destruction of the family, extreme selfishness, greed and other ills that plague Christian nations today.
It is not Islam which has championed the cause of another people`s religion identifying them as ``God`s chosen people`` and then provided the means for these people to steal Palestine and ethnically cleanse innocent Palestinians including fellow Christians. The war crimes committed, barbarism, cruel and inhumane treatment of Palestinians and the Israelis’ in brazen defiance of UN resolutions are rewarded by the most powerful Christian nation in the world with free money, undying support and special consideration.
It is not an Islamic nation that has imposed sanctions on another nation that has caused deaths of mainly innocent children in the range of 4000-5000 per month. Then to add insult to injury threaten and attack that nation – killing more than 250,000 CIVILIANS -- on false pretense causing millions more to live in squalor and misery as the great Christian nation of America is doing to Iraq. Now that the WMD claim for attacking Iraq proves to be false, this Christian nation changes the rules and claims that the WMD reason to attack Iraq does not matter.
It was not an Islamic nation that has brutally massacred more than 20,000 innocent Afghans and threw the Geneva Convention out the window in their inhumane, barbaric treatment of Afghan prisoners as the great Christian nation of America has in its false war on terrorism against Afghanistan. While the world, including Islamic nations, mourned the innocent deaths of about 3000 Americans on 911, the great Christian nation of America degrades the dignity of human beings by describing the 20,000 innocent Afghans killed as collateral damage.
It is not an Islamic nation that already has a plan mapped out known as A Project for the New American Century (PNAC) whose National Security Strategy - promulgated as late as September 2002 - now includes pre-emptive attacks on possible future competitors first, assuming regional hegemony by force of arms in the Middle East, controlling energy resources around the globe, maintaining a permanent war strategy, and more as Christian America does. It is easy to surmise that Christian America is after oil, but not one of the Muslim nations, not even Iraq, has denied America the purchase of its oil. The Christian nation of America does not care. It is bent on pursuing a warlike imperial foreign policy and is chomping at the bit to attack Iran next.
Need I say more? I could go on and on.
While the Zionists and Christian Zionists write and talk about Islam being warlike, the above information proves that Christians are the ones who are truly warlike. More evil has been committed in the name of Christianity than has been committed by any other religion in human history. Their history has been one of a people who have “the mark of the beast” in their hands or actions. But the elite Jews who are rejoicing and reaping the benefits of the turmoil caused by Christians are the ones with the “mark of the beast” in their foreheads. After all they gave the Europeans their version of Christianity and even boast about it as in the following: Quote:
We conquered you as no empire of yours ever subjugated Africa or Asia. And we did it all without armies, without bullets, without blood or turmoil, without force of any kind. We did it solely by the irresistible might of our spirit, with ideas, with propaganda.
We made you the willing and unconscious bearers of our mission to the whole world, to the barbarous races of the earth, to the countless unborn generations. Without fully understanding what we were doing to you, you became the agents at large of our racial tradition, carrying our gospel to the unexplored ends of the earth.
Marcus Eli Ravage, Jewish Scholar and Official Rothschilds Biographer http://www.ety.com/HRP/leaflts/ravage/ravage1.htm
Muslims will never say, as some Christians do, that the evils done by Christians were due to the teachings of the Noble Christ. Muslims will never blame good God conscious Christians for those evils. No, Muslims will put the blame where it belongs and that is on evil people who used the name of Christ to accomplish their wrongs. Evil men and women dirtied the name of Christ with their evil deeds. Now these same evil, war mongering, hypocritical false people are trying to smear and falsify Islam. They are at it again. They want war and they are using the name of Christ and smearing the name of Muhammad (saaw) to achieve it.
The truth is that there is no “command” in Islam about spreading the religion by the sword. There is nothing in Islam that is known as “holy” Jihad or kill the infidel concept. Most people who state that make those claims in a vacuum or deliberately take words out of context to support their claims. They are vicious lies done to demonize Islam and cause hatred. It is especially sad to see these words coming from the leader of Catholicism when the message of Jesus was one of truth, love and kindness. The Qur’an on the contrary is rich with verses showing tolerance and understanding for others of different religions. Rather than an attitude of war, air of superiority and degradation of good people of other faiths, the Qur’an is resplendent with verses guaranteeing good non-Muslims rewards from God for their goodness. Here are a few:
2: 62. Those who believe (in the Qur’an) And those who follow the Jewish (Scriptures) And the Christians and the Sabians, - ANY who believe in God And the Last Day, And work righteousness, Shall have their reward With their Lord: on them Shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve. “They are not all the same; among the followers of the scripture, there are those who are righteous. They recite God`s revelations through the night, and they fall prostrate.”
”They believe in God and the Last Day, they advocate righteousness and forbid evil, and they hasten to do righteous works. These are the righteous.” (3:113-114)
If any do deeds of righteousness,- be they male or female - and have faith, they will enter Heaven, and not the least injustice will be done to them. [4:124].
As for a “command” to spread the religion by the sword, the words of the Qur’an condemns that idea and strongly so. The idea of no compulsion in religion and freedom of conscious choice pervades the Qur’an from beginning to end. Here are just a few verses reflecting that:
Invite (all) to the Way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious: for thy Lord knoweth best, who have strayed from His Path, and who receive guidance. [16:125]
``...There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is here forth distinct from error...`` [2:256]
``Say (Muhammad it is) truth from the Lord of all. Whosoever will, let him believe, and whosoever will, LET him disbelieve.`` [18:29]
“If it had been thy Lord`s will, they would all have believed,- all who are on earth! Wilt thou then compel mankind, against their will, to believe?” [10:99].
There is much propaganda about Islam and the “command” to spread it by the sword, but Muslims are still waiting to find out where our religion teaches that. Today Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world especially after 9-11. It should be obvious to everyone that despite all of the negative publicity and association of Islam with terrorism, there are people finding it to be more attractive than any other religion in the world. More and more people are finding out the truth about Islam and converting because they became curious and decided to find out more about this ``terrorist`` religion that they keep hearing so much about. Where is the sword in all this? Who is pointing the sword at the doctors, scientists, clergy, professionals and common people to force them to become Muslims?
The truth is Islam has always spread through contact with Muslims and peaceful introduction to the teachings of Islam as it is spreading today. Not military warrior crusading Emperors, but peaceful thinkers and scholars from around the world know this and many of them have written about it as in the following:
1. Historian De Lacy O`Leary has to say on the subject of “the sword of Islam”.
“History makes it clear however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myths that historians have ever repeated” (Islam at the Crossroads, London, 1923 p. 8)
2. From Israeli Journalist, humanitarian and former Knesset member, Uri Avnery:
“Muslim Spain was a paradise for the Jews, and there has never been a Jewish Holocaust in the Muslim world. Even pogroms were extremely rare. Muhammad decreed that the ``Peoples of the Book`` (Jews and Christians) be treated tolerantly, subject to conditions that were incomparably more liberal than those in contemporary Europe.
The Muslims never imposed their religion by force on Jews and Christians, as shown by the fact that almost all the Jews expelled from Catholic Spain settled in the Muslim countries and flourished there.
After centuries of Muslim rule, Greeks and Serbs remained thoroughly Christian. When peace is established between Israel and the Arab world, the poisonous fruits of anti-Semitism will most probably disappear from the Arab world (as will the poisonous fruits of Arab-hating in our society.)”
3. From Mahatma Ghandi, Hindu and liberator of India from British colonial rule:
`I become more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the scheme for life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet, the scrupulous regard for his pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and his own mission. These and not the sword, carried everything before them and surmounted every trouble.` (M.K. Gandhi, Young India, 1924).
4. From an Atheist, Mathematician and Philosopher Bertrand Russell: I have always been told throughout my youth of the fanaticism of the Mohammedans, and especially that story of the destruction of the library at Alexandria. Well, I believed all these stories, but when I came to look into the history of the times concerned, I had a great many shocks. In the first place, I discovered that the library of Alexandria was destroyed a great many times, and the first time was by Julius Caesar. But the last time was supposed to have been by the Mohammedans, and for this I found no justification whatsoever. Nor did I find that the Mohammedans were fanatical. The contests between Catholics, Nestorians, and Monophysites were bitter and persecuting to the last degree. But the Mohammedans, when they conquered Christian countries, allowed the Christians to be perfectly free, provided they pay a tribute. The only penalty for being a Christian was that you had to pay a tribute that Mohammedans did not have to pay. This proved completely successful, and the immense majority of the population became Mohammedans, but not through any fanaticism on the part of the Mohammedans. On the contrary they, in the earlier centuries of their power, represented free thought and tolerance to a degree that the Christians did not emulate until quite recent times.
Bertrand Russell (Eng. philosopher, mathematician, 1872-1970): ``Reading History As It Is Never Written`` [1959]
5. Sir George Bernard Shaw, Writer:
`I have always held the religion of Muhammad in high estimation because of its wonderful vitality. It is the only religion which appears to me to possess that assimilating capacity to the changing phase of existence which can make itself appeal to every age. I have studied him - that wonderful man - and in my opinion far from being an anti-Christ, he must be called the savior of humanity. I believe that if a man like him were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world, he would succeed in solving its problems in a way that would bring it the much needed peace and happiness: I have prophesied about the faith of Muhammad that it would be acceptable to the Europe of tomorrow as it is beginning to be acceptable to the Europe of today. (G.B. Shaw, The Genuine Islam)
As the leader of Catholicism in the world, the Pope should learn the truth about Islam and not single out hateful false statements about the religion of 1.5 billion people to publicize. Rather than praise the ignorance of an Emperor embroiled in war against Muslims as being erudite, he should learn the truth about Islam or go to truly erudite peaceful scholars as listed above to quote from. This would be more in line with following the noble example of Christ in spreading love, peace and happiness in this world. ``Strive as in a race to achieve the goal of excellence in all that you do.``
For real insights visit: http://www.geocities.com/mewatch99/
-###-
September 25,2006 Regards, Nashid http://www.crescentandcross.com/index.php?page=articles&author=miscellaneous&subpage1=nashid1
#292 Posted by Raw_Dust on September 25, 2006 12:17:39 pm
RE: to the opinion posted in #289
Omar bashing is veeeery uncool by any standards. He is one of the ten exalted human beings who were best-enough in their deeds for the Prophet guy to get them a ticket to heaven in their life. If Omar was the arch-terrorist then why Almighty wanted him in Heaven? who screwed up here?
Omar bashing is veeeery uncool by any standards. He is one of the ten exalted human beings who were best-enough in their deeds for the Prophet guy to get them a ticket to heaven in their life. If Omar was the arch-terrorist then why Almighty wanted him in Heaven? who screwed up here?
#291 Posted by Raw_Dust on September 25, 2006 12:08:19 pm
``The former, a tolerant lot in any times, prevailed with universality, justice, human rights, women`s freedom, free trade, peace, knowledge, and reward on merit. But within 25 years of Mohammed`s death counter-revolution reversed all gains, a fate common to revolutions. ``
Didnt Mohammad`s men have a go at a mecca-bound caravan of Abu Sufyan that instigated the first war? Badar?
Mohammad also happened to massacre entire jewish adult males of tribe ``Banu Quraiza`` on charges of treason (and using Moasaic law) instead of his own brand.
I wonder what`s the definition of ``tolerance`` for this guy.
Didnt Mohammad`s men have a go at a mecca-bound caravan of Abu Sufyan that instigated the first war? Badar?
Mohammad also happened to massacre entire jewish adult males of tribe ``Banu Quraiza`` on charges of treason (and using Moasaic law) instead of his own brand.
I wonder what`s the definition of ``tolerance`` for this guy.
#290 Posted by echoboom on September 25, 2006 12:04:07 pm
How those with FAITH are so rational ( reasonable?) that they can talk discuss & sort out their misunderstandings..
and then there are the SECULAROONS LIBERALOONS who got , just this century,millions upon millions killed in more than TWO Monstrous Wars (called ``GREAT wars`` by these Satanics), millions upon million perished in gulags, pogroms, ``ethnic-cleansings and byrendering aborgines extinct by hunting/design EVEYWHERE. These same colonial bastards, the EUROPEAN JEWRY (Zions), is even now busy in exterminating the ``red Indians`` of Palestine.
Israel is not a religious issue, it is a RACE issue. The Ashkenazi (european jew is SECULAR)
and hates the arab & ethiopean jew with no less vengeance than he hates the muslim & the christian from there. It is the European colony of the undesirables (jews) who were not wanted or welcome in the ``White-world``..just as they put all the criminal whites to lord over the Australian-aborgines.
This is the accomplishments of the Westernised free-thinking mind & its westoxicated canines the world over.
Those thoroughly immersed in such farangi education call themselves Maaadren, Maaadrate, progressive, civilised & other blah blah garbage...& spend national resources to persecute & oppress their own AVaam, the aborgines, the mother-tongue speakers, the non-farangi lookalikes, the laborers the farmers the mullahs the dhoti-wearers pajama-kurtaa wearers...
These Cantonement & Colony Canines have mustered the audacity to call themselves superior to these people and clenched all the resources in their own claws & paws.
Until & unless the farangilook-alike baboons are not fast-forwarded to the Islamic evolution
just as it has happened in the Islamic Republic of Iran, all efforts by the Mullahs, the fundamentalists, the Orthodox, Islamists, the terrorists [ co-opt everyword they use for muslims & make it a GOOD word] must be focussed to exteminate the farangi virus not only from Pakistan but from every Ba Ba Blacksheep land. in Asia, Africa, & the Americasa.
Pope stresses importance of relations with Islam(Filed: 25/09/2006)
Pope Benedict XVI stressed the importance of relations between Christians and Muslims in a meeting with diplomats from the Islamic world aimed at defusing recent tensions between the two religions.The Pope apologised after his comments sparked anger
Dialogue between different faiths ``cannot be reduced to an optional extra`` but is ``a vital necessity`` for the future, the Pope said.
and then there are the SECULAROONS LIBERALOONS who got , just this century,millions upon millions killed in more than TWO Monstrous Wars (called ``GREAT wars`` by these Satanics), millions upon million perished in gulags, pogroms, ``ethnic-cleansings and byrendering aborgines extinct by hunting/design EVEYWHERE. These same colonial bastards, the EUROPEAN JEWRY (Zions), is even now busy in exterminating the ``red Indians`` of Palestine.
Israel is not a religious issue, it is a RACE issue. The Ashkenazi (european jew is SECULAR)
and hates the arab & ethiopean jew with no less vengeance than he hates the muslim & the christian from there. It is the European colony of the undesirables (jews) who were not wanted or welcome in the ``White-world``..just as they put all the criminal whites to lord over the Australian-aborgines.
This is the accomplishments of the Westernised free-thinking mind & its westoxicated canines the world over.
Those thoroughly immersed in such farangi education call themselves Maaadren, Maaadrate, progressive, civilised & other blah blah garbage...& spend national resources to persecute & oppress their own AVaam, the aborgines, the mother-tongue speakers, the non-farangi lookalikes, the laborers the farmers the mullahs the dhoti-wearers pajama-kurtaa wearers...
These Cantonement & Colony Canines have mustered the audacity to call themselves superior to these people and clenched all the resources in their own claws & paws.
Until & unless the farangilook-alike baboons are not fast-forwarded to the Islamic evolution
just as it has happened in the Islamic Republic of Iran, all efforts by the Mullahs, the fundamentalists, the Orthodox, Islamists, the terrorists [ co-opt everyword they use for muslims & make it a GOOD word] must be focussed to exteminate the farangi virus not only from Pakistan but from every Ba Ba Blacksheep land. in Asia, Africa, & the Americasa.
Pope stresses importance of relations with Islam(Filed: 25/09/2006)
Pope Benedict XVI stressed the importance of relations between Christians and Muslims in a meeting with diplomats from the Islamic world aimed at defusing recent tensions between the two religions.The Pope apologised after his comments sparked anger
Dialogue between different faiths ``cannot be reduced to an optional extra`` but is ``a vital necessity`` for the future, the Pope said.
Today`s get-together, hosted at the pontiff`s summer residence in Castel Gandolfo near Rome, included representatives from 21 countries and the Arab League.
It was convened after a papal speech in Germany angered Muslims across the world by quoting from a 14th century Byzantine text which described some aspects of the Prophet Mohammed`s teachings as ``evil and inhuman``.
The Pope later apologised in his Angelus address, saying he was sorry for the reaction caused by his words, although some Islamic leaders demanded he go further and issue a more unequivocal rejection of the comments.
Following the furore, which resulted in some groups issuing death threats against the Pope, security around Benedict XVI has been stepped up.
Vatican-watchers have suggested that Benedict XVI is taking a more hardline approach to relations with Muslims than his predecessor, Jean Paul II.
#289 Posted by PM on September 25, 2006 11:54:25 am
Hello Zahra, sure has been a looong time! :-)
The article by Uri Avnery is, true to form, excellent in its obaservations as well as wealth of information. There is no doubt that while Christian mauraders and their willing muderous hired hands went around savaging Europe during the Middle Ages, it was the Muslims who kept the light of civilization burning. And that included exhibiting how civilized people treat the vanquished, be it in the taking of Jerusalem or Spain, where nary a drop of blood was shed.
However, it seems that there is something to be said for the pope`s willingness to quote someone suggesting that Islam was spread by the sword in the early years. (Acutally, spreading not Isam, per se, but the boundaries of Islamia.) Perhaps the pope is not so ignorant after all.
Here is what a Muslim from Toronto writes in the Guardian Unlimited:
(AbbasToronto, September 18, 2006 05:31 AM)
Karen Armstrong is rather too generous to the Muslims. The Infallible was right about Muslims past and present, but wrong about Mohammed. In Arabia, Mohammed and his small businessman colleagues and Christians were up against monopoly traders, bankers, and the Tribe of Judah. The former, a tolerant lot in any times, prevailed with universality, justice, human rights, women`s freedom, free trade, peace, knowledge, and reward on merit. But within 25 years of Mohammed`s death counter-revolution reversed all gains, a fate common to revolutions.
The terror began under the kind-hearted but puppet Caliph I. Target was Mohammed`s family, their Shia supporters & Christian allies. The 2nd, a hard-hearted misogynist Omar al Farooq al Khattab 3 yrs later made anti-Mohammedanism state policy: Women, non-Arabs, the poor lost, justice denied, sword sent far and wide, free trade cut (Tariff, an Arabic word, is Omar`s innovation). Unearned wealth begot favoritism under the 3rd. Racism, misogyny, caliph Law, trade control, war, ignorance, and nepotism remain Muslim traits to this day as mainstream Muslims continue to idolize the legacy of the 3.
While none of Mohammed`s 80 battles was with Christians without whose timely help his mission would have failed, his successors made it #1 priority to conquer their lands to subdue them. Omar evicted Christians from Arabia falsely alleging that Mohammed had wished so; as a result today Saudis do not allow them in 2500 sq miles around Mecca, even in non-Hajj days. Earlier, when Mohammed had made a Peace Treaty with Meccans, violence prone Omar had threatened to secede. Today he has emerged as the patron saint of Muslim terror. Many leaders of the Taliban, and in Chechnya and elsewhere are his namesake, name their training camps after him, and hark to his glory not to Mohammed. Little wonder that of Toynbee`s 5 living civilizations (Hellenized West, Christian Russia, Islam, Sinics, Indics) the Muslims are the most backward. For Muslims to join the civilized they must denounce their terrorist roots and go back to Mohammed.
end quote
The article by Uri Avnery is, true to form, excellent in its obaservations as well as wealth of information. There is no doubt that while Christian mauraders and their willing muderous hired hands went around savaging Europe during the Middle Ages, it was the Muslims who kept the light of civilization burning. And that included exhibiting how civilized people treat the vanquished, be it in the taking of Jerusalem or Spain, where nary a drop of blood was shed.
However, it seems that there is something to be said for the pope`s willingness to quote someone suggesting that Islam was spread by the sword in the early years. (Acutally, spreading not Isam, per se, but the boundaries of Islamia.) Perhaps the pope is not so ignorant after all.
Here is what a Muslim from Toronto writes in the Guardian Unlimited:
(AbbasToronto, September 18, 2006 05:31 AM)
Karen Armstrong is rather too generous to the Muslims. The Infallible was right about Muslims past and present, but wrong about Mohammed. In Arabia, Mohammed and his small businessman colleagues and Christians were up against monopoly traders, bankers, and the Tribe of Judah. The former, a tolerant lot in any times, prevailed with universality, justice, human rights, women`s freedom, free trade, peace, knowledge, and reward on merit. But within 25 years of Mohammed`s death counter-revolution reversed all gains, a fate common to revolutions.
The terror began under the kind-hearted but puppet Caliph I. Target was Mohammed`s family, their Shia supporters & Christian allies. The 2nd, a hard-hearted misogynist Omar al Farooq al Khattab 3 yrs later made anti-Mohammedanism state policy: Women, non-Arabs, the poor lost, justice denied, sword sent far and wide, free trade cut (Tariff, an Arabic word, is Omar`s innovation). Unearned wealth begot favoritism under the 3rd. Racism, misogyny, caliph Law, trade control, war, ignorance, and nepotism remain Muslim traits to this day as mainstream Muslims continue to idolize the legacy of the 3.
While none of Mohammed`s 80 battles was with Christians without whose timely help his mission would have failed, his successors made it #1 priority to conquer their lands to subdue them. Omar evicted Christians from Arabia falsely alleging that Mohammed had wished so; as a result today Saudis do not allow them in 2500 sq miles around Mecca, even in non-Hajj days. Earlier, when Mohammed had made a Peace Treaty with Meccans, violence prone Omar had threatened to secede. Today he has emerged as the patron saint of Muslim terror. Many leaders of the Taliban, and in Chechnya and elsewhere are his namesake, name their training camps after him, and hark to his glory not to Mohammed. Little wonder that of Toynbee`s 5 living civilizations (Hellenized West, Christian Russia, Islam, Sinics, Indics) the Muslims are the most backward. For Muslims to join the civilized they must denounce their terrorist roots and go back to Mohammed.
end quote
#288 Posted by ZahraJ on September 25, 2006 10:49:42 am
Hello to all. Here`s an interesting commentary! Food for thought.
Muhammad`s Sword
by Uri Avnery
(Saturday September 23 2006)
``The story about ``spreading the faith by the sword`` is an evil legend, one of the myths that grew up in Europe during the great wars against the Muslims - the reconquista of Spain by the Christians, the Crusades and the repulsion of the Turks, who almost conquered Vienna. I suspect that the German Pope, too, honestly believes in these fables. That means that the leader of the Catholic world, who is a Christian theologian in his own right, did not make the effort to study the history of other religions.``
Since the days when Roman Emperors threw Christians to the lions, the relations between the emperors and the heads of the church have undergone many changes.
Constantine the Great, who became Emperor in the year 306 - exactly 1700 years ago - encouraged the practice of Christianity in the empire, which included Palestine. Centuries later, the church split into an Eastern (Orthodox) and a Western (Catholic) part. In the West, the Bishop of Rome, who acquired the title of Pope, demanded that the Emperor accept his superiority.
The struggle between the Emperors and the Popes played a central role in European history and divided the peoples. It knew ups and downs. Some Emperors dismissed or expelled a Pope, some Popes dismissed or excommunicated an Emperor. One of the Emperors, Henry IV, ``walked to Canossa``, standing for three days barefoot in the snow in front of the Pope`s castle, until the Pope deigned to annul his excommunication.
But there were times when Emperors and Popes lived in peace with each other. We are witnessing such a period today. Between the present Pope, Benedict XVI, and the present Emperor, George Bush II, there exists a wonderful harmony. Last week`s speech by the Pope, which aroused a world-wide storm, went well with Bush`s crusade against ``Islamofascism``, in the context of the ``Clash of Civilizations``.
In his lecture at a German university, the 265th Pope described what he sees as a huge difference between Christianity and Islam: while Christianity is based on reason, Islam denies it. While Christians see the logic of God`s actions, Muslims deny that there is any such logic in the actions of Allah.
As a Jewish atheist, I do not intend to enter the fray of this debate. It is much beyond my humble abilities to understand the logic of the Pope. But I cannot overlook one passage, which concerns me too, as an Israeli living near the fault-line of this ``war of civilizations``.
In order to prove the lack of reason in Islam, the Pope asserts that the prophet Muhammad ordered his followers to spread their religion by the sword. According to the Pope, that is unreasonable, because faith is born of the soul, not of the body. How can the sword influence the soul?
To support his case, the Pope quoted - of all people - a Byzantine Emperor, who belonged, of course, to the competing Eastern Church. At the end of the 14th century, the Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus told of a debate he had - or so he said (its occurrence is in doubt) - with an unnamed Persian Muslim scholar. In the heat of the argument, the Emperor (according to himself) flung the following words at his adversary:
``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``.
These words give rise to three questions: (a) Why did the Emperor say them? (b) Are they true? (c) Why did the present Pope quote them?
When Manuel II wrote his treatise, he was the head of a dying empire. He assumed power in 1391, when only a few provinces of the once illustrious empire remained. These, too, were already under Turkish threat.
At that point in time, the Ottoman Turks had reached the banks of the Danube. They had conquered Bulgaria and the north of Greece, and had twice defeated relieving armies sent by Europe to save the Eastern Empire. On May 29, 1453, only a few years after Manuel`s death, his capital, Constantinople (the present Istanbul) fell to the Turks, putting an end to the Empire that had lasted for more than a thousand years.
During his reign, Manuel made the rounds of the capitals of Europe in an attempt to drum up support. He promised to reunite the church. There is no doubt that he wrote his religious treatise in order to incite the Christian countries against the Turks and convince them to start a new crusade. The aim was practical, theology was serving politics.
In this sense, the quote serves exactly the requirements of the present Emperor, George Bush II. He, too, wants to unite the Christian world against the mainly Muslim ``Axis of Evil``. Moreover, the Turks are again knocking on the doors of Europe, this time peacefully. It is well known that the Pope supports the forces that object to the entry of Turkey into the European Union.
Is there any truth in Manuel`s argument?
The pope himself threw in a word of caution. As a serious and renowned theologian, he could not afford to falsify written texts. Therefore, he admitted that the Qur`an specifically forbade the spreading of the faith by force. He quoted the second Sura, verse 256 (strangely fallible, for a pope, he meant verse 257) which says: ``There must be no coercion in matters of faith``.
How can one ignore such an unequivocal statement? The Pope simply argues that this commandment was laid down by the prophet when he was at the beginning of his career, still weak and powerless, but that later on he ordered the use of the sword in the service of the faith. Such an order does not exist in the Qur`an. True, Muhammad called for the use of the sword in his war against opposing tribes - Christian, Jewish and others - in Arabia, when he was building his state. But that was a political act, not a religious one; basically a fight for territory, not for the spreading of the faith.
Jesus said: ``You will recognize them by their fruits.`` The treatment of other religions by Islam must be judged by a simple test: How did the Muslim rulers behave for more than a thousand years, when they had the power to ``spread the faith by the sword``?
Well, they just did not.
For many centuries, the Muslims ruled Greece. Did the Greeks become Muslims? Did anyone even try to Islamize them? On the contrary, Christian Greeks held the highest positions in the Ottoman administration. The Bulgarians, Serbs, Romanians, Hungarians and other European nations lived at one time or another under Ottoman rule and clung to their Christian faith. Nobody compelled them to become Muslims and all of them remained devoutly Christian.
True, the Albanians did convert to Islam, and so did the Bosniaks. But nobody argues that they did this under duress. They adopted Islam in order to become favorites of the government and enjoy the fruits.
In 1099, the Crusaders conquered Jerusalem and massacred its Muslim and Jewish inhabitants indiscriminately, in the name of the gentle Jesus. At that time, 400 years into the occupation of Palestine by the Muslims, Christians were still the majority in the country. Throughout this long period, no effort was made to impose Islam on them. Only after the expulsion of the Crusaders from the country, did the majority of the inhabitants start to adopt the Arabic language and the Muslim faith - and they were the forefathers of most of today`s Palestinians.
There is no evidence whatsoever of any attempt to impose Islam on the Jews. As is well known, under Muslim rule the Jews of Spain enjoyed a bloom the like of which the Jews did not enjoy anywhere else until almost our time. Poets like Yehuda Halevy wrote in Arabic, as did the great Maimonides. In Muslim Spain, Jews were ministers, poets, scientists. In Muslim Toledo, Christian, Jewish and Muslim scholars worked together and translated the ancient Greek philosophical and scientific texts. That was, indeed, the Golden Age. How would this have been possible, had the Prophet decreed the ``spreading of the faith by the sword``?
What happened afterwards is even more telling. When the Catholics re-conquered Spain from the Muslims, they instituted a reign of religious terror. The Jews and the Muslims were presented with a cruel choice: to become Christians, to be massacred or to leave. And where did the hundreds of thousand of Jews, who refused to abandon their faith, escape? Almost all of them were received with open arms in the Muslim countries. The Sephardi (``Spanish``) Jews settled all over the Muslim world, from Morocco in the west to Iraq in the east, from Bulgaria (then part of the Ottoman Empire) in the north to Sudan in the south. Nowhere were they persecuted. They knew nothing like the tortures of the Inquisition, the flames of the auto-da-fe, the pogroms, the terrible mass-expulsions that took place in almost all Christian countries, up to the Holocaust.
Why? Because Islam expressly prohibited any persecution of the ``peoples of the book``. In Islamic society, a special place was reserved for Jews and Christians. They did not enjoy completely equal rights, but almost. They had to pay a special poll-tax, but were exempted from military service - a trade-off that was quite welcome to many Jews. It has been said that Muslim rulers frowned upon any attempt to convert Jews to Islam even by gentle persuasion - because it entailed the loss of taxes.
Every honest Jew who knows the history of his people cannot but feel a deep sense of gratitude to Islam, which has protected the Jews for fifty generations, while the Christian world persecuted the Jews and tried many times ``by the sword`` to get them to abandon their faith.
The story about ``spreading the faith by the sword`` is an evil legend, one of the myths that grew up in Europe during the great wars against the Muslims - the reconquista of Spain by the Christians, the Crusades and the repulsion of the Turks, who almost conquered Vienna. I suspect that the German Pope, too, honestly believes in these fables. That means that the leader of the Catholic world, who is a Christian theologian in his own right, did not make the effort to study the history of other religions.
Why did he utter these words in public? And why now?
There is no escape from viewing them against the background of the new Crusade of Bush and his evangelist supporters, with his slogans of ``Islamofascism`` and the ``Global War on Terrorism`` - when ``terrorism`` has become a synonym for Muslims. For Bush`s handlers, this is a cynical attempt to justify the domination of the world`s oil resources. Not for the first time in history, a religious robe is spread to cover the nakedness of economic interests; not for the first time, a robbers` expedition becomes a Crusade.
The speech of the Pope blends into this effort. Who can foretell the dire consequences?
Muhammad`s Sword
by Uri Avnery
(Saturday September 23 2006)
``The story about ``spreading the faith by the sword`` is an evil legend, one of the myths that grew up in Europe during the great wars against the Muslims - the reconquista of Spain by the Christians, the Crusades and the repulsion of the Turks, who almost conquered Vienna. I suspect that the German Pope, too, honestly believes in these fables. That means that the leader of the Catholic world, who is a Christian theologian in his own right, did not make the effort to study the history of other religions.``
Since the days when Roman Emperors threw Christians to the lions, the relations between the emperors and the heads of the church have undergone many changes.
Constantine the Great, who became Emperor in the year 306 - exactly 1700 years ago - encouraged the practice of Christianity in the empire, which included Palestine. Centuries later, the church split into an Eastern (Orthodox) and a Western (Catholic) part. In the West, the Bishop of Rome, who acquired the title of Pope, demanded that the Emperor accept his superiority.
The struggle between the Emperors and the Popes played a central role in European history and divided the peoples. It knew ups and downs. Some Emperors dismissed or expelled a Pope, some Popes dismissed or excommunicated an Emperor. One of the Emperors, Henry IV, ``walked to Canossa``, standing for three days barefoot in the snow in front of the Pope`s castle, until the Pope deigned to annul his excommunication.
But there were times when Emperors and Popes lived in peace with each other. We are witnessing such a period today. Between the present Pope, Benedict XVI, and the present Emperor, George Bush II, there exists a wonderful harmony. Last week`s speech by the Pope, which aroused a world-wide storm, went well with Bush`s crusade against ``Islamofascism``, in the context of the ``Clash of Civilizations``.
In his lecture at a German university, the 265th Pope described what he sees as a huge difference between Christianity and Islam: while Christianity is based on reason, Islam denies it. While Christians see the logic of God`s actions, Muslims deny that there is any such logic in the actions of Allah.
As a Jewish atheist, I do not intend to enter the fray of this debate. It is much beyond my humble abilities to understand the logic of the Pope. But I cannot overlook one passage, which concerns me too, as an Israeli living near the fault-line of this ``war of civilizations``.
In order to prove the lack of reason in Islam, the Pope asserts that the prophet Muhammad ordered his followers to spread their religion by the sword. According to the Pope, that is unreasonable, because faith is born of the soul, not of the body. How can the sword influence the soul?
To support his case, the Pope quoted - of all people - a Byzantine Emperor, who belonged, of course, to the competing Eastern Church. At the end of the 14th century, the Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus told of a debate he had - or so he said (its occurrence is in doubt) - with an unnamed Persian Muslim scholar. In the heat of the argument, the Emperor (according to himself) flung the following words at his adversary:
``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``.
These words give rise to three questions: (a) Why did the Emperor say them? (b) Are they true? (c) Why did the present Pope quote them?
When Manuel II wrote his treatise, he was the head of a dying empire. He assumed power in 1391, when only a few provinces of the once illustrious empire remained. These, too, were already under Turkish threat.
At that point in time, the Ottoman Turks had reached the banks of the Danube. They had conquered Bulgaria and the north of Greece, and had twice defeated relieving armies sent by Europe to save the Eastern Empire. On May 29, 1453, only a few years after Manuel`s death, his capital, Constantinople (the present Istanbul) fell to the Turks, putting an end to the Empire that had lasted for more than a thousand years.
During his reign, Manuel made the rounds of the capitals of Europe in an attempt to drum up support. He promised to reunite the church. There is no doubt that he wrote his religious treatise in order to incite the Christian countries against the Turks and convince them to start a new crusade. The aim was practical, theology was serving politics.
In this sense, the quote serves exactly the requirements of the present Emperor, George Bush II. He, too, wants to unite the Christian world against the mainly Muslim ``Axis of Evil``. Moreover, the Turks are again knocking on the doors of Europe, this time peacefully. It is well known that the Pope supports the forces that object to the entry of Turkey into the European Union.
Is there any truth in Manuel`s argument?
The pope himself threw in a word of caution. As a serious and renowned theologian, he could not afford to falsify written texts. Therefore, he admitted that the Qur`an specifically forbade the spreading of the faith by force. He quoted the second Sura, verse 256 (strangely fallible, for a pope, he meant verse 257) which says: ``There must be no coercion in matters of faith``.
How can one ignore such an unequivocal statement? The Pope simply argues that this commandment was laid down by the prophet when he was at the beginning of his career, still weak and powerless, but that later on he ordered the use of the sword in the service of the faith. Such an order does not exist in the Qur`an. True, Muhammad called for the use of the sword in his war against opposing tribes - Christian, Jewish and others - in Arabia, when he was building his state. But that was a political act, not a religious one; basically a fight for territory, not for the spreading of the faith.
Jesus said: ``You will recognize them by their fruits.`` The treatment of other religions by Islam must be judged by a simple test: How did the Muslim rulers behave for more than a thousand years, when they had the power to ``spread the faith by the sword``?
Well, they just did not.
For many centuries, the Muslims ruled Greece. Did the Greeks become Muslims? Did anyone even try to Islamize them? On the contrary, Christian Greeks held the highest positions in the Ottoman administration. The Bulgarians, Serbs, Romanians, Hungarians and other European nations lived at one time or another under Ottoman rule and clung to their Christian faith. Nobody compelled them to become Muslims and all of them remained devoutly Christian.
True, the Albanians did convert to Islam, and so did the Bosniaks. But nobody argues that they did this under duress. They adopted Islam in order to become favorites of the government and enjoy the fruits.
In 1099, the Crusaders conquered Jerusalem and massacred its Muslim and Jewish inhabitants indiscriminately, in the name of the gentle Jesus. At that time, 400 years into the occupation of Palestine by the Muslims, Christians were still the majority in the country. Throughout this long period, no effort was made to impose Islam on them. Only after the expulsion of the Crusaders from the country, did the majority of the inhabitants start to adopt the Arabic language and the Muslim faith - and they were the forefathers of most of today`s Palestinians.
There is no evidence whatsoever of any attempt to impose Islam on the Jews. As is well known, under Muslim rule the Jews of Spain enjoyed a bloom the like of which the Jews did not enjoy anywhere else until almost our time. Poets like Yehuda Halevy wrote in Arabic, as did the great Maimonides. In Muslim Spain, Jews were ministers, poets, scientists. In Muslim Toledo, Christian, Jewish and Muslim scholars worked together and translated the ancient Greek philosophical and scientific texts. That was, indeed, the Golden Age. How would this have been possible, had the Prophet decreed the ``spreading of the faith by the sword``?
What happened afterwards is even more telling. When the Catholics re-conquered Spain from the Muslims, they instituted a reign of religious terror. The Jews and the Muslims were presented with a cruel choice: to become Christians, to be massacred or to leave. And where did the hundreds of thousand of Jews, who refused to abandon their faith, escape? Almost all of them were received with open arms in the Muslim countries. The Sephardi (``Spanish``) Jews settled all over the Muslim world, from Morocco in the west to Iraq in the east, from Bulgaria (then part of the Ottoman Empire) in the north to Sudan in the south. Nowhere were they persecuted. They knew nothing like the tortures of the Inquisition, the flames of the auto-da-fe, the pogroms, the terrible mass-expulsions that took place in almost all Christian countries, up to the Holocaust.
Why? Because Islam expressly prohibited any persecution of the ``peoples of the book``. In Islamic society, a special place was reserved for Jews and Christians. They did not enjoy completely equal rights, but almost. They had to pay a special poll-tax, but were exempted from military service - a trade-off that was quite welcome to many Jews. It has been said that Muslim rulers frowned upon any attempt to convert Jews to Islam even by gentle persuasion - because it entailed the loss of taxes.
Every honest Jew who knows the history of his people cannot but feel a deep sense of gratitude to Islam, which has protected the Jews for fifty generations, while the Christian world persecuted the Jews and tried many times ``by the sword`` to get them to abandon their faith.
The story about ``spreading the faith by the sword`` is an evil legend, one of the myths that grew up in Europe during the great wars against the Muslims - the reconquista of Spain by the Christians, the Crusades and the repulsion of the Turks, who almost conquered Vienna. I suspect that the German Pope, too, honestly believes in these fables. That means that the leader of the Catholic world, who is a Christian theologian in his own right, did not make the effort to study the history of other religions.
Why did he utter these words in public? And why now?
There is no escape from viewing them against the background of the new Crusade of Bush and his evangelist supporters, with his slogans of ``Islamofascism`` and the ``Global War on Terrorism`` - when ``terrorism`` has become a synonym for Muslims. For Bush`s handlers, this is a cynical attempt to justify the domination of the world`s oil resources. Not for the first time in history, a religious robe is spread to cover the nakedness of economic interests; not for the first time, a robbers` expedition becomes a Crusade.
The speech of the Pope blends into this effort. Who can foretell the dire consequences?
#287 Posted by PM on September 25, 2006 10:18:21 am
echo:
Yes, the Qur`an is intelligent enough (naturally, you`d say! :) ) to know that the a priori beliefs it demands of its followers cannot be `proven` in the ordinary sense of the word, and so doesn`t waste time trying. (Then again, athiests as we understand the term nowadays didn`t exist, according to Armstrong, until a couple of centuries ago.)
There is only one question left to ask:
how the heck do you get those smiley/grinny faces on front page interacts? :?
Yes, the Qur`an is intelligent enough (naturally, you`d say! :) ) to know that the a priori beliefs it demands of its followers cannot be `proven` in the ordinary sense of the word, and so doesn`t waste time trying. (Then again, athiests as we understand the term nowadays didn`t exist, according to Armstrong, until a couple of centuries ago.)
There is only one question left to ask:
how the heck do you get those smiley/grinny faces on front page interacts? :?
#286 Posted by sattar2 on September 25, 2006 8:21:30 am
OK zeemax (#285),
You can take off the mask of humanity and join other low-lives.
You can now stop blaming US for bombing Iraqi civilians, or Israel for destroying Lebanese homes. You are no different from them, as you have shown.
Those who play with joysticks or hide behind tanks are all wimps and low-lives. They will face their Creator ony day, and so will you. You won`t be able to hide behind them, nor will they be able to hide behind you. And all of you will be pointed out by thousands of one-year olds that day.
You have made your intentions clear. Now thank god for not giving you the means to carry them out. ``Means`` is what separates you from those you so severely condemn.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- CheGuevara: I can see what... NRO Is Just a
- giveabighand: Taking off shoes in... Taking The Men Who
- GT: Agha, "...how Nawaz Sharif became... NRO Is Just a
- anil: Romair: Much to the dislike... Uneven Democracy : The
- RiazHaq: While those, such as... NRO Is Just a
- CreateAlpha: Lawyers movement was a... Morality of Lawyers' Movement
- tahmed32: jay thakery: you were... I Want Jinnah's Pakistan
- CreateAlpha: Oh and one other... Uneven Democracy : The
