Patrick Masih September 18, 2006
I have no idea how to post a picture that isn`t on somewebsite already.
:(
Pls. acknowledge that you grasped the P.S in the earlier post about the smilie posting system.
`` Ok so should the washerman stay or move on``.
bhai sahib aapke `services` meiN kya shaaml hai? Can dhobis kick sense into asses??
:))
re. ``Apparently this ``master of logic`` missed the word ``obeying``, similarity of command does not translate into similarity of identity.``
Duh! I was speaking of an identity of command. Let`s say that i was ambiguous in doing tha. Let`s say I was even wrong. (Hey, it`s hard to watch ones p`s and q`s when one is laughing this hard over the contortionist`s act!)
Now, that doesn`t detract from the fact that you picked up on the ambiguity, gave it your preferred meaning, and turned it into a red herring if there ever was one. Sanke-oil man, you knew very well that he arguments was about what YOU claimed were ``identical`` commands.
re. ``Fellow readers here, this damn fool, PM deliberately does not want to acknowledge that.``
The only ``fellow readers here`` who might be interested (apart from echo) who bothered to comment on the debate has already passed his judgement. Na na na na na!
``Obeying God and obeying the messenger- when the messenger`s only duty is to convey the message does not involve a redundancy. Why you ask?``
No, no one is asking. We already know that the statement ``Obey X and Obey Y`` when X and Y are identical, is a rank redundancy, (and moreover, preents one from being a pre-requisite for the other) no matter how much you grease the satement, with your snake oil. Thank you very much!
view this users filtered interacts
Seldom has it happened that such high brow subjects as Faith and Reason alongwith the postmortem and autopsy of ``The medium is the message`` been conducted at a street level
so well that even riff-raffs like myself feel a light-bulb of Reason glowing and a halo of Faith
surrounding my small head.
There is a story about these two women who quarreled with each other each afternoon and used some very colorful language to rebutt the other`s colorful language.
A washerman would sometimes stop on his way his launderyshop because one of the phrases uttered commonly by both was the desire of one that the other should be serviced by the washerman.
This day the washerman stopped in his tracks and was watching the show. When the above expressed desire became unbearable for even the dhobi...he shut them up and said:
`` Ok so should the washerman stay or move on``.

I, alongwith the other washermen on CHOWK, ask the same question.
P.S:
P.M: THis is simply a picture. Just post it. ....this is in reply to your earlier question to me. Apparently this ``master of logic`` missed the word ``obeying``, similarity of command does not translate into similarity of identity.
Fellow readers here, this damn fool, PM deliberately does not want to acknowledge that
Obeying God and obeying the messenger- when the messenger`s only duty is to convey the message does not involve a redundancy. Why you ask? Let me explain this for the 25th time. Obeying God is CONTINGENT upon, depends upon obeying the messenger- the one who delivers his message BECAUSE God is not talking to every human being. If that were the case, only that scenario would make the ``messenger`` part redundant. Very simple easy to understand concept. Why does PM, the dimwit, deny it? Because it busts his whole case against Islam that of using Ad Hominem (an illogical argumentation technique through and through) against the prophet in order to discredit Islam. Not to mention that his Ad Hominem will be based on reports seperated atleast 250 years from the events which will not stand in any court of law as evidence for anything.
I rest my case. Let this dog keep barking.
``God and the messenger don`t share an ``identity`` in any way, this is your Christian bs speaking.``
dimwit snake-oil dealer. Don`t give MY words a twist like you do your own, please. You said ``Obeying Allah`` and ``obeying His Messenger`` ``are identical``. That is the context of my use of the word `identity`.
But trust you to obfuscate! after all you have no logical defense! Ido empathize with you. It must be a hard place to be in.
``My logical knowledge and my comprehension of English is much superior to yours``
HAHAHAHA!! This from a dimwit who continually refers to Chritian bs as being mine, right?
But go ahead Snake-oil man, go on twisting and contorting yourself and your words (and now mine too) all out of recognizeable shape. You`re good for little else.
[Hello to all. Here`s an interesting commentary! Food for thought. ]
Can we have you comment on my rebuttals to the article?
To begin with, Uri Avnery is a extreme left wing liberal. That does not make what he writes necessarily incorrect, but one should be inspecting what he says, and check them against historical facts.
Lets` begin:
[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``. ]
The struggle between the Church and the Monarchy has NOTHING to do with whether Muslims are responsible for spreading Islam by the sword.
What`s wrong with a ``crusade`` against ``islamofascism``, or any other kind of ``fascism``?
[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.]
Well, he did enter the fray, didn`t he? And even mentioned that the Pope is being illogical, without citing any reasons why.
[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. ]
This is demonstrably false. I could quote historical documents from a number of court historians from different periods of Muslim rule in India where they give long lists of doing precisely that.
[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.]
Here`s some information about Ottoman Greece:
``The Sultan regarded the Ecumenical Patriarch of the Greek Orthodox Church as the leader of the Greeks within the empire. The Patriarch was accountable to the Sultan for the Greeks` good behavior, and in exchange he was given wide powers over the Greek community. The Patriarch controlled the courts and the schools, as well as the Church, throughout the Greek communities of the empire. This made Orthodox priests the effective rulers of Greek villages. Some Greek towns, such as Athens and Rhodes, retained municipal self-government, while others were put under Ottoman governors. Some areas, such as the Mani Peninsula in the Peloponnese, and parts of Crete and Epirus, remained virtually independent. For their part, the Patriarchs regarded the tolerant rule of the Ottomans as preferable to rule by the Roman Catholic Venetians, who threatened the Orthodox faith in a way the Ottomans did not. When the Ottomans fought the Venetians, the Greeks mostly sided with the Ottomans. The Orthodox Church assisted in the preservation of the Greek heritage.
As a rule, the Ottomans did not require the Greeks to become Muslims, although many did so in order to avert the economic hardships of Ottoman rule. Many Greeks became Crypto-Christians (Greek Muslims who were secret practitioners of the Greek Orthodox faith) in order to avoid heavy taxes and at the same time express their identity by maintaining their secret ties to the Greek Orthodox Church. Crypto-Christians ran the risk of being killed if they were caught practicing a non-Muslim religion once they converted to Islam. Greeks who converted to Islam and were not Crypto-Christians were deemed Turks in the eyes of Orthodox Greeks.
Christians were subject to various forms of discrimination. Sumptuary laws forced Christians and Jews to wear distinctive clothing, distinguishing them from their neighbors. Non-Muslims were not allowed to ride horses, and if they were riding a donkey or mule they had to dismount if they passed a Muslim. Churches were not allowed to ring their bells. Christians also had to pay higher taxes than Muslims.
Taxation and the ``tribute of children``
``Young Greeks at the Mosque`` (Jean Léon Gérôme, oil on canvas, 1865); this oil painting portrays Greek Muslims at prayer in a mosque)Greeks also paid a land tax and a tax on trade, but these were either collected irregularly by the inefficient Ottoman administration. Provided they paid their taxes and gave no trouble, they were left to themselves. Greeks, like other Christians, were also made to pay the jizya, or Islamic poll-tax which all non-Muslims in the empire were forced to pay in order to practice their religion. Non-Muslims did not serve in the Sultan`s army, so the burden of conscription was lifted from the Greek peasants.
The exception to this was the ``tribute of children`` (in Greek παιδομάζωμα paidomazoma, meaning ``child gathering``), whereby every Christian community was required to give one son in five to be raised as a Muslim and enrolled in the corps of Janissaries (yenicheri or ``new force``), elite units of the Ottoman army. This imposition, at first, aroused surprisingly little opposition as the Greeks were a conquered people and could not offer effective resistance. Still, there was much passive resistance, for example Greek folk lore tells of mothers crippling their sons to avoid their abduction. Nevertheless, entrance into the corps (accompanied by conversion to Islam) offered Greek boys the opportunity to advance as high as governor or even Grand Vizier.
Opposition of the Greek populace to taxing or paidomazoma resulted in grave consequences. For example, in 1705 an Ottoman official was sent from Naoussa in Macedonia to search and conscript new Janissaries and was killed by Greek rebels who resisted the burden of the devshirmeh. The rebels were subsequently beheaded and their severed heads were displayed in the city of Thessaloniki.[2] The ``tribute of children`` was greatly feared as Greek families would often have to relinquish their own sons who would return later as their oppressors. The Greek historian Papparigopoulos stated that approximately one million Greeks were conscripted into Janissaries during the Ottoman era.
Demographics
The incorporation of Greece into the Ottoman Empire had other long-term consequences. Economic activity declined to a great extent (mainly because trade flowed towards cities like Smyrna and Istanbul), and the population declined, at least in the lowland areas (Ottoman censuses did not include many people in mountainous areas). Large numbers of Albanians, Vlachs (linguistically related to the Romanians) and Bulgarians settled in various parts of the country [citation needed]. Turks settled extensively in Thrace. After their expulsion from Spain in 1492, Sephardic Jews settled in Thessaloniki (known in this period as Salonica or Selanik), which became the main Jewish centre of the empire. The Greeks became inward-looking, with each region cut off from the others - only Muslims could ride a horse, which made travel difficult. Greek culture declined, and outside the Church few people were literate. The Greek language broke up into regional dialects, and absorbed large numbers of Turkish words. Greek music and other elements of Greek folk-culture were, to an extent, influenced by Ottoman trends.``
[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. ]
I have a friend who is a muslim from Yugoslavia. He tells me that his family used to be Christian, but were forced to convert. He calls himself an atheist.
[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. ]
Oh, so there was discrimination against the non-Muslims? Only Muslims could ``enjoy the fruits``? Doesn`t this negate what he has been saying in this article?
[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. ]
Nobody is claiming that Christians were any better. In fact, they were FAR worse. But they have changed their ways in this respect.
[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. ]
Is that why Jews flee from any Muslim country?
God and the messenger don`t share an ``identity`` in any way, this is your Christian bs speaking. My logical knowledge and my comprehension of English is much superior to yours, your posts make that quite obvious. I have proved my case quite effectively from various angles, you on the other hand have been beating around the bush and trying to dodge the obvious. My posts were not for you, you have no clue about reasoning when you support Ad Hominem, which regardless of the other arguments is ALWAYS invalid, even if the prophet had invented the Quran (which is quite impossible), it would still be invalid as criticism of the Quran, comprendey? Further, you read the obvious explanation of ``rasool`` in the Quran, a carrier of a message and NOTHING else, absolutely NOTHING as far as that role and the status that comes with it goes, and yet you force your own meaning on it. You are beyond dumb. And when you call me ``dimwit`` it shows your dimwit nature as you cannot even come up with your own insults but have to copy others.
Food for thought-- both your post and 49:14. Excellent!
``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,``
dimwit, YOU think I`m pointing fingers, because YOU reason that i am coming to you from a Christian standpoint. Grow up already, and try reading for a change. Want to know what clutching to straws is: read your #303, where you, ad nauseum, go about telling us that the work of the prophet is conveyance, as if that guarantees that any other given verse cannot be either redundant (which I`ve proven, as per your interpretation), or self-contradictory (which I can`t be bothered to show, but it remains at least possible.)
``... 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.``
Tell me, dimwit, are even you questioning the veracity of the Qur`an here? The past 100 or so posts you`ve been busy debating, if you can call it that, my contention viz what 5:18 [?] says. Or maybe you`re speaking of the case of Asma bint Marvaan, which, I`m sure, you`d like to tell us, comes from an unreliable source (unlike the case of the old lady who emptied her trash on the Prophet.) Go ahead. Give it a shot!
``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.``
Whoaaa! You`ve got serious issues, man! And I don`t just mean with the English language either!
Here`s a friendly bit of advice, man: take your anti-Chritian venom some place it will actually make a difference, like answering-Islam.org. And yes, I`m serious. You need to show those Christian clowns why picking nits in Islam from THEIR angle is like the pot calling the kettle black.
But grow up a little if you really want to debate with me.
Up to now, I was willing to believe that it was just the usual blind faith syndrom with which you were afflicted that prevented you from seeing the obvious implications of your OWN words. Now I am almost certain that you are deliberately deluded yourself, masadi.
This is rich: ``Two things being identical in essence of command does not make one of them redundant especially when one is a prerequisite for the other``
Mr. Dimwit, if you had the logical aptitude of a sixth-grader, and the English proficiency of a fifth grader, you would know that when two entities share an IDENTITY, one cannot be the PREREQUISITE for the other.
Continue to post, though. This is getting to be fun, seeing how you`re multiplying your own absurdities (thanks for that expression-- BOY is it apt!!) as you contort the English langauge completely out of shape.
re. #303: Why don`t you take up those bibical absurdities with some of your fundo-ahle-kitaab brothers. I understand that being in the desparate position you are now, you will strike with anything you can get your hands on, man, but c`mon... even many practising Chrisitians don`t regard the Bible as God`s unerring word. (They`ve grown up intellectually, you see). Now YOU, on the other hand... you`re a laugh in your true ignorance of these matters. You can recite the Qur`an backwards but have difficulty understanding the repeated statement ``The bible is a book of fairytales for me.``
But do please keep posting... Witnessing intellecual contortionism is always an entertaining pastime.
1. (John 14:6) ``No one can come to the father but by me``,
2. (John 5:30) ``I can of mine own self do nothing, as I hear I judge and my judgment is just because I seek not my own will but the will of him who SENT me.``
Now just like you, the Jews were strutting around claiming to believe in God but not the messenger, these two above repeat similarly the necessity of obeying the messenger, and not the redundancy of it if you obey God, the two go together in obeying otherwise one is meaningless. There is absolutely no redundancy whatsoever. You wont get it because you are a dimwit hypocrite. And the Quran, completely self-consistent makes this concept very clear, the mullah takes the route of stating that they are different, Allah and rasool, one is the Quran other is the hadith and so ends up in idolatory whereas the Quranic verses on several occassions when they ask for obey Allah and obey the messenger (like in 5:92) end in the text (which you are detaching because your entire knowledge of the Quran is based on hearsay) with, ``...if you turn away KNOW that on our messenger is ONLY duty of conveyance of the message``
Don`t expect a hypocrite to state facts now, should we people. Two things being identical in essence of command does not make one of them redundant especially when one is a prerequisite for the other
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`.
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.
thanks for posting that excellent write up @ 294!
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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
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?
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? :?
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.
Now don`t you pull that emotional blackmail stuff on me!
If I had to look at that little girl`s face, the answer is NO. I would never hurt her.
But, if I was playing with a joystick, I wouldn`t care who was underneath.
Hope that answers.
zeemax (#249):
There are lots of wimps and low-lives out there; the world is full of them. It is somewhat irrelevent to bring them into discussion.
The point is ... what will YOU do with this 1-year old girl? Are you going to hurt her for someone else`s wrongs? Let`s not dodge the issue at hand ...
and the Qu`raan concurs with you

but seriously:
After the first condition of having belief, unshakeable belief as an ``a priori`` condition, the Qu`raan alway addresses the Believers only...and righfully so.
The quraan is NOT for non-believers. One cannot aspire to read & ``understand`` Qur`aaN as a non-believer.
The very first lines are `` This book is for those who believe, and nurse no doubts in their minds......``
From then on the Qur`aan has time & time again exhorts the reader to observe nature, study , open eyes, gives examples of how much Allah values those who pursue to unlock the secrets of the Universe........
and muslims are not whining ``sour grapes`` either...they have seen it all, been there, done that...ALL through a unique blend of Faith and Reason
If it was done once, it can always be done again.
echo: Just so you know, if I ever had to choose, it would be the `rational` Islam of masadi that I would. Religion will always contain elements of the mystical (otherwise, it wouldn`t be religion). I would oppose any attempt to completely divorce religious belief from Reason, as this, IMHO, amounts to the grossest forms of nihilism.
It`s semantics, yes, and interesting in what it says about straying from roots (of words), or changing meanings.
But, to be sure, `logy`, or `logical` as suffixes have never had the same meaning as that connoted by just plain ``logical`` -- c.f ``biological`` and ``psychological``, where the suffix merely connotes `a study/knowledge of.`
and look how I ( amd perhaps) you too have been 9/11-ed, ever so stealthily, by the terrorism of language.
I, in my ignorance, trying to coin words and now I just ``discovered`` that it already exists!
and you called it /Theological Reasoning [ what a hoot!]; a redundancy if ever there was!
Theo-LOGICAL: Religious-Reason is enough, why add Reasoning after Theological?
So you see how much ``we`` rationalists are conditioned by our upbringing?
We subconsciosly refuse to SEE /reason in /Theological .
Quite entertaining , isn`t it and terrifying as well..to know the possibilities of not-knowing
what we know not.
Are we really incharge of ourselves?
The article, in quoting Khouri, does indeed highlight the problem that attends many inter-faith debates-- one of lack of a common language, or, to put it as Khouri did, the use of ``theological reason`` as opposed to plain vanilla reason.
My debate with masadi need not be afflicted by this lack of a common language. Every now and then, Masadi does in fact tend pull a Manuel and bring in the idiocies in Christianity, as if I`ve ever even called anything Islamic stupid. But by and large, he CLAIMS to be arguing from a reasonable, logical standpoint, but has his basics (for example the correct, Boolean, use of the word ``AND``) wrong, or is deliberately obfuscating because he`s afraid of the implications of my contentions, however innocuous.
I don`t know Plato`s chairs from his tables, nor have I read the first chapter of Treatise on Falana dimkhana Reason.
And I am the first to admit, as I did many moons ago to you, that the spice of life is to be found beyond reason.
(One caveat: The `spice` never offends reason, though it may well transcend it-- that is, lie in a province where reason does not or cannot operate.)
What I do have a certain sensibility for charlatans trying to wrap unreason in the garb of Reason, or refusing to take their supposedly logical arguments to their logical conclusion.
I can have no beef with those who don`t make claims to reasonableness and Logical consistency to begin with.
Thanks for the article.
Holy cow! A 1256-word and all i get that actually adresses the debated is:
``Next, if you want to talk about redundancy, which does not apply in this case [``because I, masadi says so-- never mind PM reasoning and analogy``], let us talk about the oft repeated copy pasted genealogies in the Bible and the four gospels that repeat more or less the same story with contradictions thrown all over the place ..``
And this AFTER I`ve repreatedly given you my stance on the bible/Christianity!!
And I`m the one who cannot comprehend simple statements!? That`s rich, man!!
re. ``Further since the prophet and his companions belonged to earlier generations, their judgment or what they did or did not do is not our concern, our concern is the message of God, i.e. the Quran:``
Please learn to separate fact from opinion, masadi, and also how to stop Begging the Question.
``[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.``
Great verse. But it does NOTHING to inform on the debate. It`s a classic Red Herring.
``Your epistle story is similarly pathetically ignorant. The Quran talks about obeying the messenger whose ONLY role as messenger is to deliver the message for the simple reason that you cannot obey God, who does not talk directly to people...Without obeying the message which comes through a messenger``
Dimwit, I`m not reading challenged. Apparently you are. I`ve accepted this interpretation, but it leads to a redunancy: It would be one thing if the verse said ``...Obey Allah, whose will is revealed through His Messenger``. But the verse (58:13) actually says ``... Obey Allah AND his Messenger``
``Nowhere does the Quran say obey Muhammed``.
Muhammed was the Rasool. Your contention is moot at best. But that is not the point being debated at present. It is about redundancy. If it indeed did say ``Obey the Quran and obey Muhammed, there would, in fact, be no redundancy.
It comes down to this, dimwit: The use of the word ``AND``. I`ve already pointed this out, and used YOUR interpretation in my allegory. Apparently, some minds are impervious to reason.
The crux of the debate CPRed by, of all people, the Pope....his poor judgment notwithstanding........ and that was about Faith & Reason.
Now humans are neither logical, nor illogical & are quite capable of being both at one time, at different times, or not at all.
Humans, handicapped by their worst discoveries & inventions viz: language and writing
( & now the ``MEDIA``) have benefitted or suffered, only Time will tell.
and you PM, the fundamentalist Orthodox Platonian & Kantian, I presume , a human.
Maybe because of this lingo terrorism a word should or must be invented for this amazing human faculty.
Let me dare to coin a few: ParaLogical? Cardilogo?( Heart + Logic)...
What do you say?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This would shed a bit more light on the issue.
::::::::::::::
INTERNATIONAL
09.25.2006 Monday - ISTANBUL 05:58
Pope Didn`t Read the Whole Book he Quoted
Sunday, September 24, 2006
zaman.com
While reactions toward Pope Benedict continue for the offensive remarks he said about Islam, an interesting detail has come to surface about the book that the pope quoted.
The pope extracted specific parts of the book “A Debate with a Muslim,” which was against Islam.
The pope said that he quoted the parts in question to prompt dialogue among religions.
Yet, the author of the book, Adel-Theodore Khoury, said that these expressions were “an obstacle against dialogue.”
The book, examined by Zaman, deals with a debate between Byzantine Emperor Manuel Paleologue II and an Islamic cleric.
While the Byzantine emperor utters remarks against Islam, the Islamic counters his remarks. He said that the religions brought by Jesus and Moses were distorted later on and the actual irrationality was in Manuel’s belief.
The remarks of the emperor that the pope quoted are severely criticized in the book by the author.
Zaman found the book that the pope made a quote from the dusty shelves of the Sorbonne University Library.
The book handles the discussions in the winter of 1391 between Manuel Paleologue II and an Islamic cleric who is claimed to be Haci Bayram-I Veli.
The work at issue is a book version of Khoury’s thesis presented to Lyon University in 1966.
The thesis is about the debates on Christianity and Islam that Manuel had with an Islamic cleric in Ankara. A few years after Manuel’s debates, Khoury examined these debates in nine different chapters. The seventh chapter was quoted by the pope.
In the seventh debate, where the issue of reason is discussed, Manuel and the Islamic cleric try to convince each other that their religion is more rational.
Manuel attacks Islam by saying, “Show me just what Muhammad that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith… and this is irrational.”
The Islamic cleric tried to explain the Islamic view. He said that Muslims believed in Jesus and Moses; however, the religions brought by these prophets were distorted later on, showing that the actual irrationality was in Manuel’s belief. The pope quoted sentences from these arguments that Manuel used in this debate.
In his analysis, Khoury revealed that during the debate, the parts “closed themselves in their own doctrine” and categorically refused the counter part, pointed out it prevents dialogue by converting the debate to monologue.
In his 237-page thesis, he mercilessly criticized this “monologue” in nine pages addressed to the present regarding the conditions of the inter-religious dialogue.
Khoury thought it was impossible to dialogue unless one tried to understand the opposing party. The only way is to be open to the other person.
He said that the only common ground on which people could come together was reason; however, Manuel and the Isamic cleric were using theological reason.
He continued: “What is needed is a common agreement and a common language,” adding that application of the mind would otherwise be an “illusion,” a trap which Manuel fell into.
Assuming that Manuel and the Islamic cleric became captive of their own judgment and doctrines, which Khoury believed, is not caused by bad faith or insincerity. He suggested that the problem was a “lack of consideration”.
Manuel, Anti-Catholic Emperor
Ignoring the analysis quoted from the book, Benedict XVI brought Manuel’s statements to the forefront centuries later. Khoury indicated how the inter-religious dialogue failed to be performed through the aforementioned debate.
Meanwhile, the 14th-century Byzantine emperor abhorred the Catholic Church, of which Pope Benedict is the spiritual leader. Manuel Paleologue II, known as an intellectual interested in philosophy and literature,
Advocated the Orthodox doctrine against the Catholic Church, Manuel continuously refused the West’s suggestions to submit to the pope, even though he was helpless against the Ottomans.
Religious History Professor Omer Faruk Harman assumes that pope’s quotation from Manuel’s statements released “a symbolic message,” even though the pope is opposed to his doctrine.
It is quite clear to people here that not only can`t you comprehend simple statements, you beat around the bush, repeat falshood and try to throw in absurdities like diverting the topic to the compilation of the Quran and all this to try to prove that your Ad Hominem against the prophet is valid argument against the Quran when the Quran places complete seperation between message and the personality of the messenger. Your epistle story is similarly pathetically ignorant. The Quran talks about obeying the messenger whose ONLY role as messenger is to deliver the message for the simple reason that you cannot obey God, who does not talk directly to people, without obeying the message which comes through a messenger. Nowhere does the QUran say obey Muhammed or obey Jesus, on the contrary they are directed to convey that they only convey what they receive and cannot invent things of their own. Now I have stated these simple things many times over and every time you come up with nonsense tales.
It should be very clear to people here why he is doing this, for the purpose of supporting an illogical argumentation technique of Ad Hominem against the prophet to dismiss the message as a result.
Next, consider these explicit verses that tell in plain terms that Ad Hominem arguments against the prophet is no disproof of the message because there is complete separation between the personality of a messenger and the message he delivers:
[34.50] Say: If I err, I err only against my own soul, and if I follow a right direction, it is because of what my Lord reveals to me; surely He is Hearing, Nigh
Further since the prophet and his companions belonged to earlier generations, their judgment or what they did or did not do is not our concern, our concern is the message of God, i.e. the Quran:
[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.
[2.141] 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.
Next, if you want to talk about redundancy, which does not apply in this case, let us talk about the oft repeated copy pasted genealogies in the Bible and the four gospels that repeat more or less the same story with contradictions thrown all over the place
Just FYI, since you asked:
In that fairytale, which is on a par in terms of absurdity with the Qur`anic version of Jesus` exit from the world (you know that one, right?) Mary M did not actually witness the resurrection, though she is credited with being the first one to see the resurrected Jesus.
In one of those amazingly incredulous passages (except, of course, to believers, to whom even Immculate Conceptions (that is, conception without sex) is quite believable) of the Gospel, Mary M actually has a conversation with the ressurected Jesus without realizing it is him. There is a suggestion that it was misty and she couldn`t really see him well. Hello? Was she audibly challenged??
re. ``To me, christianity and all this stuff of 1=3 and 3=1 is a load of crap.``
Tell me about it man! Angels/devils/gods who send prophets/prophets who have special allowances/immaculate conceptions!!! What next!!
``There is absolutely no redundancy, you cannot claim to obey Allah and reject the messenger because Allah is speaking through the messenger, which makes obeying the messenger (rasool) not a redundancy but a necessity``
Dimwit, it is precisely because, or IF, obeying the messenger is a necessity that the statement ``Obey Allah AND the Messenger`` becomes a redundancy.
But I understand that Islamists follow a different brand of logic altogether, in which the meanings of words like `AND` can be twisted out of their Boolean functionality altogether.
See, dimwit, let me make it really simple for you: Suppose I bring you an epistle from my king, which I have only memorised, for reasons of security. If I then say that the king has also said to convey to you that you are to follow HIM (in what I recite) AND follow my every word as relates to the epistle, well, that is what you call being redundant.
Comprende, Amigo?
``... the mischief caused otherwise is clearly evident in Christianity where all kinds of damn fools compare God directly talks to them and they all are going in different directions but all headed towards heaven.``
er.. when, exactly did we start debating the gobblydegook in Christianity. Trust me, I can write a book on that. And also on how insane it is for Islam to suggest that ``The Christians are people of the book`` ... ``and are not to be converted`` -- as if it wasn`t ``known`` at the time of the writing of the Qur`an that the Christians had, presumably, strayed from the original message. And it`s even more laughable that Islam bought into that most illogical of all Chritian doctrines.. the Immaculate Conception.
``Don`t waste my time with repeating nonsense if you cannot comprehend simple words that carry meanings.``
Actaully, I the only thing I can`t understand is how you are able to twist simple things with such sophistic skill and still imagine you`re being honest. Then again, the ways of the believer are probably too complex for a rational mind to wrap itself around.
Zeemax is the alter ego of Masadi.
what Masadi, cannot say publicly, zeemax sayz it. Its the old MO. (I mean 267, followed by 269 and 270).
sad, sad, What a pity!
To me, christianity and all this stuff of 1=3 and 3=1 is a load of crap.
Simply repeating nonsense does not make it true. There is absolutely no redundancy, you cannot claim to obey Allah and reject the messenger because Allah is speaking through the messenger, which makes obeying the messenger (rasool) not a redundancy but a necessity, the mischief caused otherwise is clearly evident in Christianity where all kinds of damn fools compare God directly talks to them and they all are going in different directions but all headed towards heaven. Don`t waste my time with repeating nonsense if you cannot comprehend simple words that carry meanings.
`` PM, don`t try to multiply your absurdities when I have clearly quoted the Arabic of the verse for you, which is repeated not once but multiple times in the Quran, ``maa aler rasoole ILLA balagh``, (24:54- 29:18- 54:12 etc.) i.e. there is NOTHING for the messenger Except plain conveyance. Not to mention several verses that explicitly state that he only conveys what is revealed to him, the message being the Quran and that he cannot invent things on his own based on desire.``
So now you`re saying that it is, in fact, the Messenger who is referred to in the verse ``Obey Allah and the Messenger`` -- as opposed to the ``verbatim reproduction of`` [all that you mentioned ealier.]
Of course, you do say that the Quran clearly says that there is nothig for the Messenger to convey except the message, and that he cannot invent things based on his own desire. And of course that`s not possible, since the Quran was audited before final compilation.
I won`t even begin to ask you how it is you believe that the Messenger only ever uttered the Message, and nothing extra-Quranic that could be followed by anyone, because that would be another exercise in spin for you.
So let`s jsut say that I will accept your interpretation of Rasool, and be left with the rather odd implication that Allah is literally given to redunancy. You DO know, that you cannot escape this conclusion, don`t you?
Masadus Complexii Psued Scholarii,
once again, you have given way to hyperbole and to that funny bone in you. If you stopped hyperventillating for once and thought it through your arguments would have been marshalled better. for example here is what me and catchy said elsewhere on the same topic
#16 by strongman_dick on September 24, 2006 3:36am PT
#15 you are on the mark catchy
Its a process of evolution. One group leads others follow. another overtakes so and so forth.
Fortunately an under read person like you and me have these thoughts. But the literate amongst us like zeepussy, oops sorry zeemax, could not think it through and see through the red mist. A Dirty mind blots the thinking
Thank you for pointing this out. I hope zeemax understands this
user posts | profile
#15 by catchy on September 24, 2006 3:26am PT
yes, Muslims need to do more research and write more books, but the question what Muslims have contributed needs the questioners to read some books.
The whole MAN civilization is in a process of evolution. Muslims were dominating on a certian part of its TIME LINE and lost their leading role of guiding people and serving humanity for known reasons. But the process never stops and some other Nation/s is/are always there to play the leading role/s.
Quran also mentions this;
If you turn away, Allah will replace you by another people, and they will not be like you. (47:38)
It seems that the author by the totally dimwit way in which he has written the article has got a lot of library visiting to do himself/herself. Another reason why Muslims are in the shape they are in today is because their educated follow the BS line the US feeds them, just like the BS it feeds its own poor, that they can achieve anything that their elite can achieve if they just work hard at cleaning the fryer or grill on which they flip their burgers 8 hours a day 5 days a week for decades and then have to visit loan sharks to make their rent or buy food for their kids. Keep up this BS only damn fools buy it.
[A classic example of a person who does not have a clue about facts and argumentation, look carefully at his conclusion, ``trust me``- that is the sum total of their ``reason``.]
No, actually if you had half a brain and/or any self-respect, you would not have said that that is my argument. That was my CONCLUSION.
MY ARGUMENT was that there is NOTHING in that badly done cut-and-paste job to indicate that it did not come out of the head of an uneducated and illiterate bedouin who was trying to hoodwink and control other idiots (including things like the sudden ``revelation`` in the Quran about how God wanted him to do the wild thing with his daughter-in-law. And in the nick of time, too! :) ).
an answer from one perspective is given below - from the JANG
http://thenews.jang.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=25579
Angry
By Dr Farrukh Saleem
Muslims are angry with the Jews. We are angry with the Christians. Pakistani Muslims are angry with Jews, Christians and Hindus. People of the Book -- Jews, Christians and Muslims -- are all at war while China and India stride ahead.
We are angry so we turn their technology against them; use their planes to bring their high-rises down and use their cell phones to detonate bombs in their high speed trains (the first hand held mobile phone to become commercially available was the Motorola DynaTAC 8000X).
Can we win by downing their high-rises or by murdering commuters?
We were angry with the Danes so we boycott their butter and their cheese. By the same logic, if we are angry with the Jews shouldn`t we stop using vaccinating needles? Stop using polio drops; end all vaccinations for Hepatitis B, stop using kidney dialysis machines, stop treating leukaemia and stop treating syphilis? Should we even stop using computers because the first micro-processing chip was invented by a Jew (Pentium-4 microprocessor and Centrino processor were entirely designed, developed, and produced in Israel)? If we are angry with the Jews shouldn`t we return our nuclear chain reactors, all our optical fibre cables, traffic lights, videotape recorders and everything made of stainless steel? Stop wearing jeans, boycott Baskins & Robbins, Dunkin Donuts, Starbuck`s and Dell Computers? Stop using Google as well as Oracle? We are angry with the Jews, Christians and Hindus. Angry, however, isn`t taking us anywhere. Angry won`t ever get us anything.
Shouldn`t we be even angrier with ourselves? Look around, what has been the Muslim contribution to humanity over the past one thousand years? Look around, how many items of daily use in our lives are Muslim inventions? After all, there are 57 Muslim-majority member-states of the OIC. Can anyone name just one Muslim country responsible for a major technological, scientific or a medical breakthrough? Can anyone name an Arab country -- just one -- who`s intellectual output has enriched humanity?
True, Al-Khwarizmi, the `father of Algebra`, was a great mathematician, astrologer and astronomer. Al-Farghani had measured Earth`s diameter. Ibn Sina gave humanity `The Canon of Medicine`. Omar al-Khayyam discovered binominal expansion, measured the length of the year to within six decimal points (as 365.242195), mapped the stars in the sky and showed the world how to solve cubic equations (in 1970, a lunar crater was named after him and in 1980 an asteroid was named after him).
Al-Farghani died in 833; Al-Khwarizmi in 850, Ibn Sina in 1,037 and Omar al-Khayyam in 1,123. Question: What have Muslims contributed to the human civilisation over the past 833 years?
We are angry at America. But why is America the richest and the most powerful? Of America `s 298 million citizens 1.1 million qualify as `scientists`. Of the 1.3 billion Muslims less than 300,000 qualify as `scientists`. Among them, fifty-seven OIC countries have an average of ten universities each for a total of less than 600 universities for 1.3 billion Muslims. America has 5,758 universities. Of the 1.3 billion Muslims more than 800 million are absolutely illiterate.
Once again, angry won`t get us anything. Every Muslim wants the followers of Islam to become the dominant force. What then should be the winning strategy? History stands witness that when Muslims owned the largest library we overpowered Constantinople, Nimes (in France), North Africa, Cyprus, Sardinia, Sicily, Egypt, Jerusalem, Syria, Walachia (Romania), Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Albania, Persia, Venice and Hungary.
Back then, Muslims weren`t angry they were busy building libraries, producing knowledge and consuming knowledge produced by others (and not boycotting). The Caliphs of Cordoba ruled Spain for 275 years. Arab occupation of Sicily lasted 264 years. Are we now angry at America because America has been occupying Iraq since 11:30 a.m. the 19th of March 2003?
The Library of Congress is now the largest library; one hundred and twenty-eight million items on 530 miles of bookshelves. The collections include more than 29 million books, 2.7 million recordings, 12 million photographs, 4.8 million maps, 5 million music items and 57 million manuscripts. The Library of Congress receives some 22,000 items each working day and adds approximately 10,000 items to the collections daily.
Angry won`t do it. 9/11 won`t do it. 7/7 won`t do it. Library is the way.
Some people are just so pathetically ignorant that they read something clearbut just don`t get it. Like I said in those various posts the proof is in the message not the messenger, so if you have to find fault with Islam try to disprove the message and not use Ad Hominem against the messenger. What does that tell your dimwit mind?
O great Amir of the Jamaat-e-islamia-e-chowk-ibn-al-qaeda, shreek of shreeks,Pir Jamaat-e-Nostradaum-ibn-chowk-al-fortune-tellers-association, O Masadi Complexii Psuedo Scholarii
please explain above in light of your comments
(a) a pope`s academic lecture
(b) your name calling of others
Please O Masidus Complexii Psuedo Scholarii explain your standing on this above quote.
A classic example of a person who does not have a clue about facts and argumentation, look carefully at his conclusion, ``trust me``- that is the sum total of their ``reason``.
Yes, and I don`t know if you have noticed, but the most prolific posters are masadi, zeemax, echoboom and urstruly.
Do you see a trend here?
#257 Ajeya
Ajeya, it is not fair to call mian Masadi an idiot!
He is the best specimen one could hold up to the world – the essence of what the land of the Pure was always supposed to deliver.
Just what the Jinnah prescribed!
The inevitable “other” shoe that dropped – taking its due time, of course!
You must give it to him – he is at least honest with his green-supremacist views – and not a hypocrite like most of the remaining denizens of that land of the super Pure – who at their core feel very much like him but are more careful in how they phrase their words – at least until they can get that “dar ul Islam” firmly in place!
[Some people are just so pathetically ignorant that they read something clearbut just don`t get it. Like I said in those various posts the proof is in the message not the messenger, so if you have to find fault with Islam try to disprove the message and not use Ad Hominem against the messenger. What does that tell your dimwit mind?]
Ah, I get it now.
The Quran contains E = mc**2, the Grand Unified Theory and How To Make Quantum Dots. Oh, I forgot - also that the mountains act as paperweights to hold the earth (which happens to be flat), down.
Therefore it MUST have come from ``Al-lah``.
Therefore Muhammad could NOT have made it up - it contains such great stuff - how could he?
It`s so simple - how could I have missed this irrefutable logic! :))
Masadi my boy, you ARE an idiot. Believe me. Honest. You are. And don`t let anyone tell you otherwise.
If THAT is your logic, you ARE dumb. Very dumb. Trust me on this.
Interesting incident, lasting memory. Here is a two-bit input that may be in context here.
Vicars of Christ (The Dark Side of the Papacy) by Peter De Rosa is a must read for an insider`s view of the History of the Vatican.
Actually you have not the slightest clue of what logical arguments are about, in order to understand them you need to understand the meaning of words and the word ``rasool-messenger`` means something, it means one who delivers the message. If I send someone a messenger and ask them to obey the messenger it means obey my message- this is very simple, it invovles absolutely no redundancy since God is not directly communicating with the person(s) to whom the message is addressed, otherwise there would be no need for a messenger- yet you are so dumb in your prejudice that you cannot get it. Further, how would you have any clue about logical argumentation when your entire case and the entire case of Christiandom against Islam is based on an illogical premise that not only misunderstands what Islam is about but uses absurdly illogical Ad Hominem to prove their case, in other words they are using their own premise of being obsessed with Jesus and think that Islam is about similar obsession about prophet Muhammed- Multiplied aburdities that are described by this damn fool as ``logical arguments``.
Further the Quran identifies itself as the ``speech`` of the messenger, ``innahu laqawle rasoolen karim`` (69:40), as opposed to the speech of any personality which includes the mundane of everyday existence.
While referring to the personality of the prophet it either uses his name or the title of nabi. You will not find a single verse in the Quran that says, `` Follow Allah and follow the nabi``, it will always be the word rasool used there.
Finally, it just shows how pathetic your case is against Islam when you have to rely on third rate sources to find dimwit criticisms of the personality of the prophet, Ad Hominem to disprove the message.
Some people are just so pathetically ignorant that they read something clearbut just don`t get it. Like I said in those various posts the proof is in the message not the messenger, so if you have to find fault with Islam try to disprove the message and not use Ad Hominem against the messenger. What does that tell your dimwit mind?
[The Quran never asks you to obey person y, it always asks you to obey the ``rasool``- messenger and it explicity makes clear what the duty of the messenger was ``maa aler rasoole illa balagh``- there is NOTHING for the messenger except to convey the message. Nowhere does the Quran present the doings of the prophet as proof of the validity of the message and it states clearly where the proof is, in the book]
So the Quran is sacrosanct. Because it is a message from God. And Muhammad is merely the messenger.
Impressively rock-solid logic. No holes or nothing.
Ummm...er...ummmm ..... WHAT IF the Quran was NOT transmitted to Muhammad by ``God``? WHAT IF he made it all up? WHAT IF he borrowed liberally from the existing religious books of that area at that time? The Old and the New Testaments? And threw in some more stuff that suited him whenever required?
Ever think of that? Eh? Masadi Genius?
This is really the same as saying that the word ``islam`` and ``salaam`` both have the same root which means peace. Therefore, Islam is a peaceful religion. This kind of bullshit only appeals to madrassah students and choir boys, not to reasonable people carrying more than a gram of brain.
I read the whole speech too. The attack on Mohammad came early, and quite gratuitiously, and I am quite convinced that the Pope did that to spark exactly the kind of reaction that it did. Because now he can point his finger and say oh...look ...I was right all along. I for one have nothing but utter contempt and hate for all those who wear the cloak and claim to have greater proximity to the divine than the common man; let alone those jerks who make it their profession to do so. Joseph Ratzinger is the worst of that sort, in that he just doesn`t use this whole canard to live a life of luxury; he actually uses it to incite wars and hatred, all the while with despicable shamelessness, claiming the mantle of the very tradition which the Catholic church has relentlessly opposed.
``The Quran never asks you to obey person y, it always asks you to obey the ``rasool``- messenger and it explicity makes clear what the duty of the messenger was ``maa aler rasoole illa balagh``- there is NOTHING for the messenger except to convey the message. Nowhere does the Quran present the doings of the prophet as proof of the validity of the message and it states clearly where the proof is, in the book ``
.................................
you are a pathetic hypocrite, you have similar ideas about the prophet as does the pope yet you criticize him and fail to criticize others that have done the same while pointing to the validity of Ad Hominem in attacking Islam, which proves that you are not only a hypocrite but a damn fool.
[Reply to interact #215]``
So if I say Mohammad can go screw himself, it should not matter to you. After all, it`s not the messenger that is important but the message.
1. ``there is NOTHING for the messenger except to convey the message.``
2. ``you have similar ideas about the prophet as does the pope``
Does one not make two irrelevant?
I see. So you mean the Israelis razing Palestinian fighters` homes and farms with bulldozers and sending their families with no shelter under the elements are actually ` low-life and wimps`? Please answer this and we will continue.
zeemax (#237),
I am not asking you to walk away. If someone wrongs you, and you cannot forgive, settle the score with HIM, and not with his 1-year old daughter.
But if you do decide to kill this 1-year-old, YOU are the low-life and the wimp I mentioned earlier.
``I think that the Krauthammer makes eminent sense. He also conveys his facts in a rational and cool manner. That is why he is rtead by millions across the USA.
You have not disputed a single fact he quoted in the article in #234.``
I have no quarrel with the any facts that he might have quoted. It is the spin on those facts that I think betray his very prejudiced nature. If I didn`t have masadi on my hands at the moment (and the idiotic cretin at my heels :)) ) I might bother with a rational repudiation of Krauthammer`s article.
And, by the way, the fact that he is read my millions across the USA really counts for nothing.
Actually, after re-reading your last post, I have a couple of questions:
Intersting to hear that Rasool is a function, and that it means ``being verbatim delivery of the message without addition, deletion interpretation or self-invention``. What I`d like to know is:
(a) where exactly in the Qur`an (not anywhere else, since that could just be a post hoc convenience) it is ``explained very clearly`` as being the above,
(b) where, if anywhere else in the Qur`an, the word rasool is used in precisely this sense, as opposed to referring to the Prophet Mohammed himself.
(Verse 4:80 of course, is not helpful as it could be interpreted both ways.)
(c) what word, if any, is used in the Qur`an to refer to the Prophet Muhammed himself, as opposed to `rasool` in the sense you have mentioned.
Thanking you in anticipation.
BJ,
You should see the debate between Krauthammer and James Galloway on Katrina on his site. He blew him away and everyone was laughing at Krauthammer. Krauthammer is a bigot and just plain stupid.
PM, 241
This one is worth a second
laughing my ass off
...and farting while scratching it...never mind that everyone is watching.
#236
I think that the Krauthammer makes eminent sense. He also conveys his facts in a rational and cool manner. That is why he is rtead by millions across the USA.
You have not disputed a single fact he quoted in the article in #234.
LMAO!!!!
#225 Godot:
[[I am not “Bapu.” PM cannot be shamed. His only tactic is to immediately resort to profanities and insults. He’s one shameless chootya who is too busy scratching himself. He just beats around the bush, letting out air from his ass while scratching himself. ]]
Keep the whiny posts comin`, cretin.. at least they provide comic relief to an otherwise academic board.
masadi: You will get back to me on which of the logical outcomes of the ayat you favour, won`t ya? Or, of course, you could always take the godidiotic route and continue whining about how I only curse, swear and throw profanities when someone challenges me logically.
Which reminds me: Would you aver cretin`s assinine statement about Isalm making all men equal in God`s eyes? C`mon, you`re many things, but not really and idiotic cretin, so I expect you`ll do better.
PM, 237
laughing my ass off
...and farting while scratching it...never mind that everyone is watching.
Wait a minute ... you say ``if a person has an issue with you, and decides to hurt your wife and kids, would that seem fair to you? Such a person is a wimp, a worthless coward, a low-life.``
Exactly. So you are saying that I should tell that that person he`s a wimp, a worthless coward, a low-life .... so there! Thumb my nose at him and walk away?
No my friend but thanks for your advice. You do that. I would rather make sure to hurt him and whatever and whomever he cherishes real bad ...
Thanks for unwittingly proving my point, to which I`ll get in a minute. But first, let`s address this queer habit that you`ve probably picked up from Godiot, of ignoring the logical argument of my case by referencing my innocuous labelling. And yes, unless you take the term `mullah` as derogatory, it really is innocuous. But it`s all right, I understand. Whinig is the last refuge of the logically defeated.
``Very good that you`ve reverted to labels like Mullah because you have nothing to counter any of my arguments, it is actually quite pathetic even behram does better than what you have managed to put up.``
Actually, you two-bit snake-oil dealer, (there, is that a more descriptive label now?), if you refer to my post adressed to you, I have put up a very logical, rational prepudition of your position. Oddly enough, you spend the rest of your post attempting to counter that very edifice, an attempt that I shall, now, once and for all put to rest.
You write: ``Allah is a personality, a proper name for God, Rasool is a function which is explained very clearly as being verbatim delivery of the message without addition, deletion interpretation or self-invention. Now read 4:80 which tells you explicity that follwing the rasool is identical with following Allah``:
Snake-oil dealer, I have no need to read anything else that the Qur`an says unless it is going to inform one the ayat we are debating. And 4:80 does not do so. If anything, it confuses the issue, leading to a seeming contradiction. Allow me to point out what should be obvious to any unblinkered reader:
As you say, ``The source of Islam is just the Quran, the revelation of God, not the God and the prophet, not two Gods just ONE God, therefore ``Muslims`` become idolators when they associate other words attributed by hook or by crook to the messenger, completely alien to the Quran, regardless of what they call them.``
If I didn`t know better --and acutally, i don`t!-- I`d say that that last bit about ``words attributed by hook or by crook to the messenger`` is a classic red herring. Mullah sahib, I have not attributed ANY words to the messenger. I have ONLY taken one little ayat from the Qur`an, gone with your favoured choice of word (``rasool``) and attempted to show why you are wrong in what you contend. Maybe I was not lucid enough, given the weight of yout blinkers. Thanks to further clarification of terminology from you now, I can try from a different angle:
First, your quoting any ayat on how Muslims may not associate anyone/anything with God is hardly proof that the ayat: ``Obey Allah and his Messenger`` cannot possibly be exhorting people to follow the Prophet himself (as opposed to the Quran). So far I am arguing only only the logical plane. The only way reason you state that the ayat cannot be itnerpreted as is most obvious is that you believe that the the Qur`an cannot contradict itself. That, however, is far from etablished, mullah masaadi. You are merely begging the question (heard of that fallacy?) in your argument above.
Now, the only way in which one could actually accept your argument that the ayat does not call for following of the MAN Muhammed in addition to the message he transmitted, is by accepting that Allah is given to rhetorical redunancy. I have already pointed this out, but I can understand why you have difficulties, so here it is again:
Obey Allah and His Messenger -- (the Qur`an) -- (1)
Now, as per your own statement, Allah`s will is revealed only though the Quran, or, in the context above,
Allah = the Qur`an
(2)
Substituting (2) in (1), we get:
OBEY THE QURAN and the Messenger -- (3)
Now, as per your statement, obeying the Messenger = obeying the Message, i.e, the Quran -- (4)
Substituting (4) into (3), we get:
OBEY THE QURAN AND THE QURAN
Now, this opens up two possibilities:
(i) This interpretation is correct, and Allah is given to redundancy in what is deemed to be the most sublime literature. (astagfirullah!!)
(ii) This interpretation is wrong, and the Quran does indeed exhort followers to obey the Man. (Of course, this would lead to an internal inconsistency, as you point out, unwttingly, leading to a call to idolatory)
I suppose which interpretion you fidn more plausible comes down to what it is you want or need to believe to maintain some psychological equliibrium.
There are some other possibilities that we will not conisder because we believe your mind is not ready for them.
``Finally don`t try to teach me what Islam or the Quran is, I have a decent understanding of it.``
Oh, I wouldn`t begin to teach you what Islam or the Qur`an is, mullah sahib. I know very little of either. What I do know, however, is how to recognize BS in logical arguments when i see it, from wherever quarters they might come. If that helps you better understand Islam and the Qur`an, how can that be a bad thing for you?
#225 Godot:
I am not “Bapu.” PM cannot be shamed. His only tactic is to immediately resort to profanities and insults. He’s one shameless chootya who is too busy scratching himself. He just beats around the bush, letting out air from his ass while scratching himself.
I rest my case, laughing my ass off all the way to the brillo rack. :))
Please don`t pollute the board with the rantings of this sophisitc neo-con and Zioinst apologist, who is always out to paint not only Islam, but Christianity too, in a bad light.
And yes, I can construct a rational repudiation to many of his rants.
#230: ``Considering all this, Mushy`s reaction was both responsible and admirable.``
hmm.. maybe.
Or maybe it was the only choice he had, if he wanted to actually keep his seat, uniform and his bread buttered. Also, there might be some truth to Mazari`s statement on CNN last night that Pakistan welcomed the opportunity to end the talibization of Afghaniztan, sicne the taliban had morethan outlived their utility and were a threat not only to civil society there but in Pakistan as well.
Mushy appears to taken the only real option he had, given than he isn`t an Islamist willing to work for his own H&D at the expense of millions.
By Charles Krauthammer
The Washington Post
Friday, September 22, 2006; Page A17
Religious fanatics, regardless of what name they give their jealous god, invariably have one thing in common: no sense of humor. Particularly about themselves. It`s hard to imagine Torquemada taking a joke well.
Today`s Islamists seem to have not even a sense of irony. They fail to see the richness of the following sequence. The pope makes a reference to a 14th-century Byzantine emperor`s remark about Islam imposing itself by the sword, and to protest this linking of Islam and violence:
• In the West Bank and Gaza, Muslims attack seven churches.
• In London, the ever-dependable radical Anjem Choudary tells demonstrators at Westminster Cathedral that the pope is now condemned to death.
• In Mogadishu, Somali religious leader Abubukar Hassan Malin calls on Muslims to ``hunt down`` the pope. The pope not being quite at hand, they do the next best thing: shoot dead, execution-style, an Italian nun who worked in a children`s hospital.
``How dare you say Islam is a violent religion? I`ll kill you for it`` is not exactly the best way to go about refuting the charge. But of course, refuting is not the point here. The point is intimidation.
First Salman Rushdie. Then the false Newsweek report about Koran-flushing at Guantanamo Bay. Then the Danish cartoons. And now a line from a scholarly disquisition on rationalism and faith given in German at a German university by the pope.
…
In today`s world, religious sensitivity is a one-way street. The rules of the road are enforced by Islamic mobs and abjectly followed by Western media, politicians and religious leaders.
The fact is that all three monotheistic religions have in their long histories wielded the sword. The Book of Joshua is knee-deep in blood. …
Christianity more than matched that lurid history with the Crusades, …
And Islam, of course, spread with great speed from Arabia across the Mediterranean and into Europe. It was not all benign persuasion. After all, what were Islamic armies doing at Poitiers in 732 and the gates of Vienna in 1683? Tourism?
However, the inconvenient truth is that after centuries of religious wars, Christendom long ago gave it up. It is a simple and undeniable fact that the violent purveyors of monotheistic religion today are self-proclaimed warriors for Islam who shout ``God is great`` as they slit the throats of infidels -- such as those of the flight crews on Sept. 11, 2001 -- and are then celebrated as heroes and martyrs.
Just one month ago, two journalists were kidnapped in Gaza and were released only after their forced conversion to Islam. Where were the protests in the Islamic world at that act -- rather than the charge -- of forced conversion?
Where is the protest over the constant stream of vilification of Christianity and Judaism issuing from the official newspapers, mosques and religious authorities of Arab nations? When Sheik `Atiyyah Saqr issues a fatwa declaring Jews ``apes and pigs``? When Sheik Abd al-Aziz Fawzan al-Fawzan, professor of Islamic law, says on Saudi TV that ``someone who denies Allah, worships Christ, son of Mary, and claims that God is one-third of a trinity. . . . Don`t you hate the faith of such a polytheist?``
…
The pope gives offense and the Mujaheddin al-Shura Council in Iraq declares that it ``will break up the cross, spill the liquor and impose the `jizya` [head] tax; then the only thing acceptable is conversion or the sword.`` This to protest the accusation that Islam might be spread by the sword.
Zeemax,
`` ... If you kill our women and children as fair game in war, we will kill your women and children as fair game in war ...``
Whether you emphasize ``If`` ... or ``as fair game in war`` ... in your statement, is meaningless. You are still advocating killing innocent women/children with whom you have no beef.
Re-read your statement and ask yourself: Is it fair that you kill their women and children ... if you cannot get to them?
In other words, if a person has an issue with you, and decides to hurt your wife and kids, would that seem fair to you? Such a person is a wimp, a worthless coward, a low-life.
Mohar,
Exactly! Mushy not giving in to suicidal notions of H&D is what saved Pakistan from obliteration. In the final analysis, the last donkey standiing gets to bray the loudest. At least, Mushy is not in the dock like Sadman or even Slobodan. :)
Well - you should see Mushy in a news video taken a couple of days after 9/11, in company the then US ambassador... he looked as if he is p!ssing his pants right then - it was hillarious..:)
Mushy deserved to be bombed... much more than Sadman Houston or anybody else... he escaped by GUBOing and there is no ``honour`` in that... Even Powell was surprised how fast and easily Mushy GUBOed... A people for whom whining about ``honor and diginity`` [H&D] is part of national character - that was something...
Interestingly - we have never heard pakis talk about H&D since then...:)...
Considering all this, Mushy`s reaction was both responsible and admirable. He swallowed his pride, overlooked the obvious insult, and steered the ship narrowly through the gauntlet of outrage, vengeance, and thirst for Muslim blood in those dark and terrible days. Unlike Sadman Houston and Milosevich, Mushy showed statesmanship. Good for Mushy - if all this is true.
Thanks for quoting An-nisa. No. 95 is the umbrella definition our friend requires.
I had replied on the other board but nevertheless let`s continue here ...
Firstly, you mistook my statement for denoting revenge. Let`s re-phrase it at follows:
``If you kill our women and children as fair game in war, we will kill your women and children as fair game in war``.
Secondly, I do not like to quote Quranic verses on these unworthy pages. It only leads to desecration and blasphemy by heathens and macacas; besides our resident secularoons / moderatoons pulling out all sorts of interpretations and misinterpretations which I consider purely imaginery. Another reason is I am not a neighbourhood Maulvi to flaunt Quranic verses and Ahadees in defence of whatever position I may have at any point in time.
Next, we`ll need to agree on a couple of overriding premises by which I carry my argument, one of which I will make an exception by quoting here:
44:58 Fainnama yassarnahu bilisanika laAAallahum yatathakkaroona
( Thus, then, we have made this easy to understand, in your own tongue, so that men might take it to heart.)
So the premise is that Quran is not esoteric, nor was meant to be. It is simple, with enough room for reasoning by common minds. It neither demands literalism to free the reader from all freedom of choice, nor presents complex philosophies. In short, it was meant for the pagans of the desert and not for the chowk intellectuals.
The other premise is upon `Tauheed` being the supreme and ultimate destination of the Quranic message. This being the paramount spiritual pillar amongst the 5 pillars of Islam; i.e. rest being social and ritualistic.
If we agree on the above two premises, then we can continue. Otherwise it is pointless.
As for Jihad, I had listed ten groups fighting now. I consider ALL of them Jihad, not only fully justified but ORDAINED under one or another Quranic injunction; while you consider NONE to be so. Therefore we have a long way to go.
Helping the oppressed is also one form of Jihad. I do not see any Islam in the following either but it is still Jihad:
``“And what is wrong with you that you do not fight in the Cause of Allah, and for those weak, ill treated and oppressed among men, women, and children, whose cry is: Our Lord! Rescue us from this town whose people are oppressors.
..............The Women: 75
if zeemax is here plz read this
zeemax
{I`m not sure whether 9/11 was carried out by Muslims; but even if it had been, their answer would be :If you kill our women and children, we will kill your women and children.}
i am really grateful that you have proved me right at very outset of your post.
i wrote once:
``wherever it is carried out to satisfy ones own ego it is not jihad, its personal war so its a very sacred word for us and the thinline between jihad and personal war needs to be understood. and the jihadis you talk about are fighting their personal wars to satisfy their egos so they cannot be called jihadi in any sense``
and you wrote:
``if you kill our women and children, we will kill your women and children``
SO:
where is jihad?
where is islam?
where is God?
here i am quite comfortable to say under the light of your notion that this is revenge, personal war, ego. BUT NOT JIHAD.
hope you will come up with some reference of Hadith or quran to prove claiming Jihad in this situation as obligatory.(if you kill our women and children, we will kill your women and children)
beleive me or not i wish you could come up with some solid reasoning based on islamic sharia to prove your notion right and your objective should be to make the Liberaloons/Moderatoon like me to accept your school of thought. and plz prevent beating the bush.
you once said that haider is badly confused to urstruly. i started thinking at that time that i might be wrong. but i tried to adopt the way to question you to know your point of view where you feel i am worng. but when i asked about the jihad you said it is all written in the sura baqara and didnot tell me a single extra word and started tagging me with different names, which i was not expecting. beleive me i wanted to be corrected. but now i feel that your objectives are different perhaps you are trying to defend your ownselves not islam. you come up with the auguments to prove yourself right against bjkumar and the party. but you never tried to prove the teachings of islam logical and right. and there is hell of difference.
here let me tell you your mail contains lots of confusions. which can be pointed out easily.
for example you tried to prove your notion by giving the example of hiroshima`s nuclear bombing giving it the shape of hypothesis. which is totally wrong because they would have never said it Jihad simply because they are not muslim. wish you had quoted some example from Islamic world.
There are many more. Will elaborate in next mails. come to point.
thanks
haider
iThink, 214
And to Godot, if he has used ``idiot`` to make a point you could have used Bapu`s technique to shame him
I am not “Bapu.” PM cannot be shamed. His only tactic is to immediately resort to profanities and insults. He’s one shameless chootya who is too busy scratching himself. He just beats around the bush, letting out air from his ass while scratching himself.
Today`s Today`s Washington Post: Muslims Raise Funds For Catholic Churches
view this users filtered interacts
Now you`re clutching at straws.
When the Qur`an admonishes: ``Obey Allah and his Rasool``,
Unless there is a higher or at least ANOTHER source of Allah`s injunctions (other than the Quran), it would be a totally REDUNDANT statement. >>>
Very good that you`ve reverted to labels like Mullah because you have nothing to counter any of my arguments, it is actually quite pathetic even behram does better than what you have managed to put up. Allah is a personality, a proper name for God, Rasool is a function which is explained very clearly as being verbatim delivery of the message without addition, deletion interpretation or self-invention. Now read 4:80 which tells you explicity that follwing the rasool is identical with following Allah:

The source of Islam is just the Quran, the reveltion of God, not the God and the prophet, not two Gods just ONE God, therefore ``Muslims`` become idolators when they associate other words attributed by hook or by crook to the messenger, completely alien to the Quran, regardless of what they call them. Finally don`t try to teach me what Islam or the Quran is, I have a decent understanding of it.
He writes <<< When people covert to Islam, it is because they are moved by its sublime message. But Muslims converting to other faiths is simply a sign of some hanky panky. Rrrright! >>>
Not other faiths just Christianity especially when these missionaries make the distribution of basic necessities to the poor dependent upon attending church services, a well documented fact. Regarding the ``Church member`` I was talking about he was a representative of the minority community in the political establishment, I am not concerned with what sect he was with.
#216 by behram1 on September 21, 2006 7:14pm PT
``This is what a great hero of Iran wrote in the Washington Post, about Iranian mullahs ``
Personally, I dont agree with both but it is not a bad idea to look at the other POV too.
Letter to Mr. Ganji
Your well-intentioned letter is addressing the people of a nation that are being scared into giving up their liberties in exchange for security
September 21, 2006
I read with interest your earnest appeal in ``Letter to America`` posted in Washington Post today. I appreciate and share many of the views you`ve expressed and the necessary measures needed to ease tensions between Iran and the United States. I also fully understand your lingering bitterness and bias against Iranian government which is a natural reaction to your unjust and gratuitous 6-year long incarceration. What I found perplexing was your total lack of acknowledgement of the human rights violations you so vehemently abhor by the country your letter addresses.
The history of the United States did indeed begin with the establishment of a civilized nation under a Constitution. But the American people also demanded and eventually received the Bill of Rights which guaranteed that the new government would not trample upon their newly won freedoms of speech, press, and religion, nor upon their right to be free from warrantless searches and seizures. These privileges were referred to in the Declaration of Independence as ``unalienable rights.`` They were also called ``natural`` rights, and correctly described by James Madison, fourth American President and one of the original contributors to the Constitution, as ``the great rights of all mankind.``
If you had an opportunity to keep up with or catch up on world affairs, United States in particular, in the last few years, you would be shocked to learn that those very rights are under attack and flagrantly violated in America today.
Forty days after the September 11, 2001 attacks, U.S. government shoved through and Congress passed, with virtually no debate, the USA Patriot Act giving the government the power to access medical records, tax records, and information about the books its citizens buy or borrow, and the power to break into their homes and conduct secret searches without telling anyone for weeks, months, or indefinitely.
Just ask Mr. José Padilla, a U.S. citizen, who was arrested by authorities on May 8, 2002, at Chicago`s O`Hare airport and held incommunicado without due process. Or Mr. Esam Hamdi another American citizen captured in Afghanistan in 2001 by the U.S., labeled ``illegal enemy combatant``, and detained for almost three years without any charge. Or hundreds of other persons who were swept up, detained, or sent to secret CIA prisons overseas to be tortured and interrogated. Don`t these acts, by your own definition, make the current ruling American regime also irresponsible and dangerous?
It is nice to see that you are promoting direct talks and taken a position against outbreak of another war against what you`ve correctly described as a large and populous country like Iran which would only lead to further destabilization of an already disturbed region, thanks in large to unwise military adventurism on the part of US/UK and their ever-shrinking coalition of the bribed.
Mr Ganji, your well-intentioned letter is addressing the people of a nation that are being scared into giving up their liberties in exchange for security; and where some are slowly waking up to the reality that the very government you`re pleading for help to address human rights violation in Iran, is doing everything to suppress those same rights both within its own borders and at other gulags and detention camps set up across the world at the expense of its own citizens.
Words are cheap: Addressing the UN General Assembly, Mr. Bush proclaimed that ``the goals of this country is to help those who feel hopeless, to spread liberty, and to enhance prosperity and peace``, while his administration has done everything to destroy hope and undermine freedom by bringing war and terror to many, and financial peace to few. Happiness, peace and security are universal values that promote stability and worth protecting. Prosperity is the fruit of such permanence for all to enjoy and should not be limited to a closed circle of affluent war profiteers.
Let`s hope that your call to peace does not fall on deaf hears and America wakes up to its folly and once again upholds the basic principles it was founded upon.
Daniel M Pourkesali is a member of the Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran. This article was originally published in CampaignIran.org.
Now you`re clutching at straws.
When the Qur`an admonishes: ``Obey Allah and his Rasool``,
Unless there is a higher or at least ANOTHER source of Allah`s injunctions (other than the Quran), it would be a totally REDUNDANT statement.
Pray tell, what could this other source be (astagfirullah!) so that, by another stretch of creative imigination, we are asked to understand `obey the Rasool` as meaning obey what he reveals as divinely mandated, or in other words, the Qur`an?
As for Trinity Shrinity, man, you have some serious comprehension issues. I have already ridiculed it on grounds of plausibility, and distanced myself from a subscription to ALL such fairy tales, including that of the Immaculate Conception, which, probably for political reasons, was assimilated into Islam. Care to apply your apologetics to show how THAT Islamic is so logical, btw?
For your info, the laughable explanations from the Church about Three Persons in one God are just that, laughable, but is no more illogical than say, the idea of Man ascending seven heavens, or of djinns and what-not.
I have alrady agreed with you on that Catholic schools in the past got away with a lot of crap that should never have been allowed. So you`re barking up the wrong tree here. Reality check now, buddy: We`re living in 2006, not 1956. Oh wait.. it`s payback time, now, right? That argument would be sooo you!
And btw, it`s pure BS that ``churches are so widely scattered``, and nothing but unadulterated crappola that ``..schools run by them are so widely scattered and they use all kinds of tactics to deceptively convert people and their children.`` but at least it offers an insght in a parnoid mind: When people covert to Islam, it is because they are moved by its sublime message. But Muslims converting to other faiths is simply a sign of some hanky panky. Rrrright!
`` In the 1990s one of your Church members was claiming on PTV that Christians now number 10% of the population, a gross exaggeration but it gives clear insight into what they want to do.``
``My`` Church members? I didn`t know they`d opened A Unity branch in Pakistan. Where is it, dude?
Please supply concrete evidence that the figure of 10% is a `gross exaggeration`? I can provide credible sources that claim that the offical 4% is a gross understating.
Dear masadi:
{... You want to prove points by posting propaganda? Sure as hell wont work with me. }
Of course it will not work for you, and I know that. You have no intellect and all this humming is due to your vibrating nature.
Respectfully submitted,
Actually the US elite not only considers their own people like children which they then abuse (talk about mass child abuse), it considers the entire globe as children and animals who can`t think for themselves and so need policing and control. Further don`t make a big deal of political prisoners in Iran when the US supported Shah regime did the same, bring some of those political prisoners and other brutalized by the Savak and let them cry crocodile tears in front of the Whitehouse and see what reaction it gets. You want to prove points by posting propaganda? Sure as hell wont work with me.
Akbar Ganji is an Iranian journalist and writer.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/20/AR2006092001583.html
Letter to America
By Akbar Ganji
Thursday, September 21, 2006; Page A25
My brief journey to your beautiful and amazing country began in New York City with a symbolic hunger strike in front of United Nations headquarters. Its purpose was to bring to the world`s attention the plight of political prisoners in my country, Iran. We demand that all political prisoners in Iran be freed. I am certain that you appreciate our desire for freedom; it was, after all, the main principle upon which your country was founded.
My American journey commenced shortly after I was released from prison in Iran. I spent six years behind bars on the bogus charge of endangering national security. I came here bearing a message from a movement whose members are hard at work promoting the values of democracy, human rights, social justice and civil liberties. We want our country to play a positive role in promoting peace, security and cooperation in the region. To achieve our goals, we need the support of the entire world, particularly your vast and powerful country.
To end the tensions between our countries, we appeal to your natural sense of independence, liberty and fairness -- to your belief that the pursuit of happiness is not just the prerogative of some classes or nations. Happiness, peace and security can be achieved and sustained when we succeed in making these values universal. The sense of physical pain as well as injury to our sense of human dignity and self-esteem are common to us all. No less common is our shared sense of peace, security, joy and laughter.
The history of the United States as a nation begins with the establishment of a polity based upon a constitution. In modern Iran, that is still a relatively new idea. Although it dates to our Constitutional Revolution of 1906, we have in fact achieved only some of the goals of that revolution. We are, a century later, still struggling to create a polity based on a constitution and the rule of law.
Even the 1979 revolution could not turn this dream into reality. The political and ideological forces that came to dominate that revolution denied the people the right to exercise their free will. The official ideology of the ruling clerical regime considers all humans to be less than adult and says that without the supervision of the clergy, they will act like children, if not madmen. According to this clerical theory, the people are most virtuous when they are most docile.
This is similar to the concept of the ruler as shepherd and guardian, and the people as flock. The official ideology of the Islamic regime calls for fully implementing this idea in the political domain. The idea is not, of course, limited to the world of Islam. Religious fundamentalism, whether it appears in Islamic, Christian, Jewish or Buddhist hue, shares the desire to humiliate the people and deny them their rights.
In Iran, we hope to achieve our goal of a new polity and a new constitution not by violence but by following a peaceful and democratic path. And in this struggle we need moral support from all freedom-loving people around the world -- particularly the United States.
We want the world to know that our rulers do not represent the Iranian people and that their religion is not the religion of the entire nation. We ask that in shaping its policies toward the Iranian regime, the United States not overlook the interests of Iranian civil society. In particular, we hope that America listens to those in Iran who fear that policies intended to contain the current crisis might in fact lead to a greater crisis, and to war.
We are convinced that the outbreak of a new war in the Middle East, particularly against a large and populous country such as Iran, would destabilize the region and the world. And it would deprive us of the chance to found a peaceful and democratic political order. We are also against policies, such as economic sanctions, that bring extraordinary hardship to the lives of ordinary Iranians.
It is both possible and desirable to solve the problems between the United States and Iran through direct talks. Such diplomacy will best serve the interests of the American and Iranian people if it is conducted in a transparent fashion. This transparency would not only make it impossible for advocates of war to increase tensions but also would help isolate them. Iranian democrats are opposed to secret diplomacy.
If, in the 1980s, the United States had pursued a policy of never establishing ties with enemies of human rights, and if it had given priority to the interests of civil society, it could be reaping the benefits of a successful foreign policy today. And the danger of terrorism would have been less than it is now. In fighting nuclear proliferation, all countries must be treated equally. The Iranian people do not accept double standards in this matter.
We believe the government in Tehran is seeking a secret deal with the United States. It is willing to make any concession, provided that the United States promises to remain silent about the regime`s repressive measures at home. We don`t want war; nor do we favor such a deal. We hope that the regime will not be allowed to suppress its people, foment a crisis in the region or continue with its nuclear adventurism.
But the dangers of the Tehran regime are not limited to the nuclear question. The regime is dangerous mostly because it is willing to brutally trample on the democratic and human rights of the Iranian people. It is dangerous because it is willing to create gender apartheid in the name of religion and to suppress religious and ethnic minorities. Finally, it is dangerous because it considers all forms of dissent unforgivable sins. The real goal of the nuclear program is to make these policies permanent. In its negotiations with the Iranian regime, the West must not overlook this important fact.
Today I stand among a large number of Iranians who live in the United States. Most are now citizens of this country, educated and successful. They owe their success not just to their resourcefulness and hard work but also to the admirable ability of American society to accept strangers and immigrants on its shores, and to America`s cultural tolerance. The large community of Iranians in America is imbued with affection for it. They, as well as the people of Iran, hope that political conflicts will be resolved and replaced by bonds of friendship and peaceful cooperation.
masadi, eat your heart out for criticizing this beautiful land of the free and of the brave. You are a snake and a namk haram, and a vibrator.
Respectfully submitted,
If you accept that:
1. The Book X is the unaltered, inconrovertible word of Allah, and
2. The Book X admonishes believers to ``obey Allah and also Person Y``
then it should follow that,
If there is a certain character trait possessed by the Person Y not worthy of emulation,
then the merit of Book X, by extension (refer to #2 above) is called into question. >>>
That is where this person has absolutely no knowledge of Islam and its concept of ``messenger``- rasool. The Quran never asks you to obey person y, it always asks you to obey the ``rasool``- messenger and it explicity makes clear what the duty of the messenger was ``maa aler rasoole illa balagh``- there is NOTHING for the messenger except to convey the message. Nowhere does the Quran present the doings of the prophet as proof of the validity of the message and it states clearly where the proof is, in the book and that we are not responsible and might not have knowledge of what earlier generations did or did not do when it asks us to avoid speculating about things we know nothing about.
Not even the best logicians have ever made a case that the trinity can be ``logically valid`` regardless of the hysterical claims made by some Chrstians that the trinity is like water, ice and steam and other such BS, if you heat up Jesus he will transform into the Holy Ghost if you freeze him he will become the Father, go ahead give such nonsense examples which will only reveal you have no clue about your own concept of Trinity.
Regarding opening up new Churches, it is near impossible to get a second phone line in Pakistan as well that does not mean that there is no freedom to make phone calls, and when Churches are so widely scattered and schools run by them are so widely scattered and they use all kinds of tactics to deceptively convert people and their children why should anyone turn a blind eye to that. In the 1990s one of your Church members was claiming on PTV that Christians now number 10% of the population, a gross exaggeration but it gives clear insight into what they want to do. Nevertheless opening up a mosque in the US is no easy task and Muslims here not only face discrimination based on their names they face a double jeapordy of race, compared to this the way Christians practice and prosletyze in Pakistan and maybe the dimwits like Behram and tahmed didn`t get it when I talked about St. Mary`s- but I went through the same school system, is more freedom than any available here at even the college level. I was told to change the topic many times at the university here when I picked Islam to talk about.
Regarding you answering my questions, you have only ``threatened`` to answer them while not having either the intelligence or the guts to address them. You are a pathetic hypocrite, you have similar ideas about the prophet as does the pope yet you criticize him and fail to criticize others that have done the same while pointing to the validity of Ad Hominem in attacking Islam, which proves that you are not only a hypocrite but a damn fool.
In my book you`re my equal & may be bigger. Dont be discouraged by the narrow minded ppl here that`s there aim in life to redicule those who dont conform to their ideology.
And to Godot, if he has used ``idiot`` to make a point you could have used Bapu`s technique (couldn`t resist saw the `Lage Rahoo Muna Bhai` last weekend) to shame him but you chose the silly third grade theatrics & came out a bigger fool. Look even with the pseudonym your ego got hurt that tells lot about you. I think Moharr has point in # 197.
Is it the Masih in his name?
So he said muslims have a superiority complex, well dont they?
Dont you know how the majority of Pakistani muslims treat anyone with the sur name Masih?
Now listen to this by the man who has the same initials as your nic. here.; except that he either is a real arsehole or just deliberately portrays such an image because maybe the sandhurst-education he got makes it incumbant on the mutts to be like one.
[the italics are mine, for you to parse]
Now that is like throwing a ``MONKEY into the WENCH`` [sic--intended sic]
Musharraf slams `irresponsible` Pope
Posted Thursday , September 21, 2006 at 08:45New Delhi: Pakistan`s President Pervez Musharraf has said Pope Benedict XVI comments on Islam were unfortunate and irresponsible.
``I think the comments that he (Pope) made were absolutely irresponsible, nobody I believe has the right to hurt anybody sentiments. Nobody, even if you believe otherwise, even if you believe something to be true, but you don`t have to speak the truth if it is hurting about one-and-half billion people around the world,” he said.
During a visit to Germany last week, the Pope cited a 14th century emperor who called Islam ``evil and inhuman.`` The remark triggered strong protests from some Muslim groups and Islamic governments across the globe. The Pope later expressed regret for the reactions to his statemen
``Some embrace Islam, she said, because in an increasingly raunchy Britain they dislike being seen as sexual objects—the veil frees them from the male gaze. Many male converts, who include men of Afro-Caribbean stock, prize the Muslim family model in which men are idealised as dignified providers and protectors, she says.``
These is what I refer to as the counter-culture type of converts. They dislike their culture or aspects of it (can`t fault them for that), associate their, or the mainstream, religion with that culture (often illogically) and therefore opt for a new religion in their search for a new life.
The interesting thing is, following their own logic of association, most would presumably opt OUT of Islam living in a place like, say, Pakistan. Only they cannot , for their dear life, choose another religion.
So they become `secularists` instead, retaining a nominal Muslimness.
chacha echo... maybe you will sympathize more with your `converted` Muslim secularists now? :)
The rest of the world can only judge muslims and islam by what has been going on ever since the mullahs were put on a pedestal and given funds and guns by Zia.
That is the truth that echoboom and the arab macacas he worships are clueless about.
we were debating reasons why brits convert to islam, the economist has done an article today,
``Rebecca Masterson, once Catholic, became a Muslim six years ago and has interviewed women converts for a research project at London University. Some embrace Islam, she said, because in an increasingly raunchy Britain they dislike being seen as sexual objects—the veil frees them from the male gaze. Many male converts, who include men of Afro-Caribbean stock, prize the Muslim family model in which men are idealised as dignified providers and protectors, she says. Other studies suggest that Islam has helped people escape from drugs and alcohol. Men are more likely than women, it seems, to react against British policy in the Middle East by embracing a violent form of Islam.``
``With his daughter, Thaksin Shinawatra looked forward to a ``deserved rest`` since the coup. ``I am going to buy some groceries,`` he said.
popular if he touted shiraz a little more.
about fundamentalist, i was surprised to find that a dry-wall contractor i know was trying to convert his brother to the true church (i.e. a born-again fundamentalist). they are born catholics from puerto rico. this guy has 5 kids all home-schooled because he finds public schools out of the question and parochial (catholic) schools not strict enough. also, many of the new latin immigrants from brazil etc are not joining catholic dioces but going to protestant churches.
Celebrate not quarrel!
The United Satan is being Zaleeled, day in and day out..the Century of the DOGs has
extended a bit beyond 100 years..and the Dog Day Afternoons have become Dog Day Dusks. The english-barking dogs from the cantonement and colony kennels from India, Pakistan, West Indies, Jamaica, East African colonies, Guyaana..you name it.. the pen-pushers who are good for nothings except earning a living by pushing papers & becoming code-coolies [the most unlearned people in the world]
While those ferom the Madressas are chasing the Satans away.Satan , according to Faust, appears in the form of a dog.
Mistake not and let not yourself be get misled by those who are the followers of Mirza Ghulam-i-Sagaan-i-Farangi { The Mirza of the slaves of the Farangi Dogs}. They always have Ahmah as part of their name--in the sunnat of MIrza GHulam-i-sgaan-i-Farangi &
not in honour of the Last & Everlast Prophet (pbuh) on earth.
A courageous man speaks out ... Chavez in rare form at the United Nations
VHeadline.com commentarist Stephen Lendman writes: Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez chooses his authors, political and social thinkers well, and there`s no one better than Noam Chomsky. In his dramatic and courageous speech yesterday to the 61st UN General Assembly, Chavez held up a copy of Chomsky`s 2003 book Hegemony or Survival (which I`ve read and quoted from before). In the book, Chomsky cites the work of Ernst Mayr whom he describes as ``one of the great figures of contemporary biology.``
Mayr noted that beetles and bacteria have been far more successful surviving than the human species is likely to be. He also observed that ``the average life expectancy of a species is about 100,000 years`` which is about how long ours has been around, and he went on to wonder if we might use our ``alloted time`` to destroy ourselves and much more with us.
- Chomsky then noted we certainly have the means to do it, and should it happen, which he says is very possible, we likely will become the only species ever to have made itself extinct.
Hugo Chavez also could have explained what Chomsky had to say about this possibility in his most recent book, Failed States, in which he addresses the three issues he feels are most important - ``the threat of nuclear war, environmental disaster, and the fact that the government of the world`s only superpower is acting in ways that increase the likelihood of (causing) these catastrophes.``
- Chomsky goes even further raising a fourth issue that the ``American system`` is in danger of losing its ``historic values (of) equality, liberty and meaningful democracy (because of the course it`s on).``
Reflecting the thinking and spirit of Noam Chomsky, Hugo Chavez delivered an impassioned speech yesterday to the assembled delegates who came to hear him. It`s one likely to be favorably remembered many years from now. At its end, the delegates showed their appreciation and support by giving him a standing ovation (the longest one of all the leaders addressing the Assembly) in contrast to the cool and polite reception given George Bush the previous day who chose not to attend to hear the Venezuelan leader.
Too bad he didn`t as he might have learned from it if he stayed alert and paid attention. Citing the language in Chomsky`s book in his hand, Chavez said: ``The hegemonistic pretentions of the American empire are placing at risk the very existence of the human species (and) We appeal to the people of the United States and the world to halt this threat, which is like a sword hanging over our head.``
He went on to explain that earlier the president of the US attended an Organization of American States (OAS) meeting and proposed a NAFTA-type trade agreement in both regions that is the ``fundamental cause of the great evils and the great tragedies currently suffered by our people. Neoliberal capitalism, the Washington Consensus ... has generated ... a high degree of misery, inequality and infinite tragedy for all the peoples on (this) continent.``
Hugo Chavez called George Bush ``the devil`` several times and said he came here yesterday and ``from this rostrum (talked) as if he owned the world.``
- He denounced the US president`s talk, said he`s responsible for all conflict in the Middle East and that those opposed to these policies are resisting his imperial model of domination.
Chavez predicted the US empire will fall, said ``What we need now more than ever ... is a new international order`` and that he wants to see a reinvented UN be part of what can help achieve it. He said the UN under its current rules ``does not work`` and must be changed to bring more democracy to the organization. He called for the ``foundation of a new United Nations`` and proposed four fundamental changes including the ``need to ... suppress ... the veto in the decisions taken by the Security Council (because) that elitist trace is incompatible with democracy, incompatible with the principles of equality and democracy.`` He also called for expanding the UN Security Council to include developing nations as permanent members and wants to strengthen the role of the Secretary General. He stressed that today the UN body is ``worthless`` and needs to be ``refounded.``
Hugo Chavez is dedicated to the principles and spirit of the Bolivarian Revolution he gave the people of Venezuela and wants to spread it to the developing world as a counter-force to the US model of global dominance of the developed North over the less-developed South with the US as hegemon-in-chief.
He called on leaders from the developing world to unite and resist to build a new world model based on social equity and justice.
Judging by the reception Chavez got yesterday, it looks like he made some progress toward that goal, especially in Latin America that`s become an incubator of resistance against the uni-polar world the US is beginning to lose its grip on and in support of the multi-polar one Hugo Chavez wants to help create.
Stephen Lendman
lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net
PM:
Thanks for the references. You say:
``.....are leaving the Church because they find it too liberal.``
Yes, I find this very interesting too. Fundamentalism is taking roots all over the world. I am sure you know about the powerful Catholic groups like Leg. of Christ, Op. dei etc. These groups (apart from some small Jewish groups) control business and finance in most of Latin America. They are important players here in the US too. These groups are extremely closed and do not advertise themselves. They will tell you that their sister-in-law or uncle is a member of the group but will never tell you that they themselves are a pert of the group. Members are very religious, very decent, are heavily into charity and education boards and also extremely rich. They also have tremendous influence on their local communities, often at individual levels (they hardly mention their groups). But above all they are fundamentalists. In this day and age, and given their location, you would be surprised to hear their opinion on race, women, gays, other religions etc. These views may even put your local mullah`s views to shame. The guys have longed for a `powerful` pope for some time now. Many believe that they have finally got one. But many still need to be convinced .... I think the pope is talking to them.
Regards.
Re: # 142 salim
Be careful there - hearing juicy stories is NOT the only thing that catholic priests do... they have their own version of gilman fixations...``}
Mohar Bhayya,
Leave it to you to keep track of the clouds above the silver lining. :) I will withdraw my application to the seminary. :(
[talking about stupidity ............
.......... given the miserable state of the muslims and the rather dubious character of mohammad, i have often though about reverting to the religion of my dhoti-clad ancestor raja gopinath of gujjar khan ............ but then the horrible hindoos, who i hold in great esteem inspite of their head wagging and steak-on-the-hoof worship, go and do something equally stupid like burning old woman : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5366506.stm
......... now, what is up with that ?........ ]
A few points:
1) In India, Sati is ILLEGAL.
2) It has nothing to do with Hindu ``religion``.
3) In this particular case, it may have been suicide or murder (by her sons).
4) (The most important point) Hindus are NOT trying to convert you guys so that you are OBLIGATED to burn old women.
Of course, you, or any otrher Muslim on this forum, would not be able to refute any of the points.
So, do I think that having obtained an irrefutable answer the Malodorous Muslims are going to stop talking about Sati?
No. I don`t. Because although they are arguing themselves hoarse all day on Chowk, when cornered, they will say that it is their ``faith``, therefore arguments do not apply.
Go figure. Or better, don`t bother.
Re 200
this excellent article
The air-head scratcher congratulating himself

Scratch scratch.
Interesting, that thesis. It is the thrust of AlephNull`s argument here as well as this excellent article.
I am not knowledgeable enough, I guess, to comment it. I was certainly not aware that sizeable populations in Latin America and TX, AZ and CA are leaving the Church because they find it too liberal.
Napoleon said the character is destiny. And so the destiny of Pakistan is being shaped in our primary schools....and madrassahs (of which we have 14000). And this explains why after 60 years of independence, we remain a politically unstable nation with maulvis buzzing around like flies on a beggar.
Yep - the guy was inconsolable, cried a f***ng river in chowk about serious dicussions, heart-to-heart talks and relationshsips and what not... and how hinuds are scr@wing his life by not allowing him to engage in all those activities... boo hoo... and chowk-staff were bowled over... there was a big group-hug... Ugghhh - it was pathetic...
and after all that drama - we have this... I mean - what are you going to do with these whining effeminates ?...
``PM: but seriously speaking - the Catholic Church is the oldest continuous bureaucracy in the world. what the hell do you expect from a bureaucracy?? new ideas??``
True, dat!
``Islam on the other hand is a bazaar. with everyone mullah elbowing others to sell his stuff.``
Would`ve been great if the wares came without the label ``Sealed in the 11th century. No user or expert serviceable parts. Open at your peril.``
PM:
Do you think that the pope was trying to circle the wagons? A lot of people, especially in Latin America, are leaving the Catholic church. So are catholics in Texas, Arizona and California. Surprisingly, it is because they feel that the church is not conservative enough. In that sense Ratzinger is a `good` leader for these folks. However, the pope is nerdy and is not able to communicate as well as his predecessor (I read his book in defense of the Christian dogma and it is a difficult read). I have a feeling that he is trying to communicate to the masses that he is a tough guy and will protect his folks from the onslaught of the barbarians. I will not be surprised if he says something nasty about the Jews / Israel in the near future, followed by something on the evangelists.
Pope, the holy father.... Muhhammad, the PUBH .... and Bal the mothafkking Thackeray...
Are you trying elevate that Thackeray rat into the company of ``giants`` or is there any other point to your increasingly stupid outbursts....[ like that ``muslims do not take atrocities lying down`` stupidity]
As far as I know - hinuds have already taken care of Thackeray by sending him out of power... the rat is sitting on his bony hunches and screwing his son`s wife, is what I heard... Now, who is going to take care of the Pope, the Holy father for his sins?... Or Muhammad the PUBH for his untold genocides?...
PM
Keep scratching with Brillo pad. Don`t mind the red pajama of yours.
``Wasn`t this guy ``godot`` whining about ``serious discussions`` sometime back?... ``
Oh really!?!?? LMAO!!! Didn`t anyone tell the cretin to grow up and come back?
So long!
Parting thoughts:
re. godot the idiot #113:
``That’s true, [Muslims have a superiority complex] because Islam is the only religion that teaches that all human beings are equal before God, and that welfare of the other is as important as the welfare of self.``
That`s funny. Equal before God, but clearly not before the Law. Do you really want to argue this out Godot? I mean, weight of Muslim witness vs non-Muslim, dhimmi-tax and the rest?
Don`t tell me... I`m not waiting...
P.S. btw, ``too many`` is by definition a subjective statement requiring no evidence. Too much for a cretin to comprehend? tch tch
(b0y)friends freely...
Now what?....
Well - when next time hinuds give you just desert - don`t come crying to mommy...:)
``.....by the way, what were they thinking when they painted the church on the corner of the mall and murree road pink!``
I dunno... `inviting the Boston, or SF diocese over, maybe??
“can you provide statistical evidence of “far too many”?
Yes, but not to cretins who don`t know the meaning of `equal in God`s eyes` anyway. So scratch off already. Take your #3 file with you.
:))
re. godot the idiot #113:
``That’s true, [Muslims have a superiority complex] because Islam is the only religion that teaches that all human beings are equal before God, and that welfare of the other is as important as the welfare of self.``
That`s funny. Equal before God, but clearly not before the Law. Do you really want to argue this out Godot? I mean, weight of Muslim witness vs non-Muslim, dhimmi-tax and the rest?
Don`t tell me... I`m not waiting...
PM, 185
You cannot provide evidence because you let it out when scratching.
Scratch scratch.
“can you provide statistical evidence of “far too many”?
Yes, but not to cretins who don`t know the meaning of `equal in God`s eyes` anyway. So scratch off already. Take your #3 file with you.
:))
PM
re 180
Scratch scratch. Stop using Brillo, the steel wool pad...you are now bleeding. Your pajama is all red.
Sons arrested in sati death probe
The practice of sati is still rare in India
Indian police have arrested four sons of an old woman,/u> they believe committed suicide on Wednesday by jumping onto her husband`s funeral pyre
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/5366506.stm
talking about stupidity ............
.......... given the miserable state of the muslims and the rather dubious character of mohammad, i have often though about reverting to the religion of my dhoti-clad ancestor raja gopinath of gujjar khan ............ but then the horrible hindoos, who i hold in great esteem inspite of their head wagging and steak-on-the-hoof worship, go and do something equally stupid like burning old woman : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5366506.stm
......... now, what is up with that ?........ these people make the pope and mullah masadi look like geniuses
PM: you are right about churches in rawalpindi - as far as i can tell, not a single new church has been built in the last thirty five years and i have heard my christian friends often complain about it .......... also, i don`t recall seeing an ahmedi mosque (the one on murree road has been `under construction` for the last twenty five years and its dome and minarets were taken down about twentyyears ago - i have never seen the big iron gate or the small door in the gate open) ............similary, ismailis keep a low profile and their jamaat khanas are often in nondescript houses in residential areas ........... in an islamic country it is not wise for infidels to flout their religion - you never know when the faithful will discover god and go on a rampage ............. masadi is impaired by his fanatical faith and is a pathological liar ................ by the way, what were they thinking when they painted the church on the corner of the mall and murree road pink !
Dear Patrick:
You post to masadi is indicative of his level of reasoning and his belief.
{ Hopefully, you are just riled up over the spanking you got yesterday, and this is just an aberration on your part. }
No sir, this is not an aberration. Masadi, is just a vibrator who only vibrates on this chowk to get some ecstasy. Poor fellow, being a vibrator his only station is on this chowk.
{.... But now your fine words somehow ring a little hollower, because you seem to have an issue not with the secular West, per se, but with Christianity too.}
He has problems with all other social setup except his own brand of faith, and its superiority.
Respectfully submitted,
PM, 178
“So, to you “Christians” no longer feel superior to other religions…and is that your personal opinion or you can back it up with evidence?”
While educated Muslims stress ``there is no compulsion...``, far too many are indoctrinating their young into a ridicule of the very societies
“can you provide statistical evidence of “far too many”?
Scratch scratch.
Maybe you were not satisfied with my arguments re. the Ad Homenim issue. So let me clarify:
WHY AD HOMENIM IS NOT EVEN POSSIBLE W.R.T ISLAM & THE PROPHET
(disclaimer: this is not an attempt to malign the prophet; simply an examination of the logical tenability of the above contention)
In fact, let us, for reasons of discretion, take Person Y, and Book X so as to not tarnish the the Prophet or the Qur`an, even unwittingly.
If you accept that:
1. The Book X is the unaltered, inconrovertible word of Allah, and
2. The Book X admonishes believers to ``obey Allah and also Person Y``
then it should follow that,
If there is a certain character trait possessed by the Person Y not worthy of emulation,
then the merit of Book X, by extension (refer to #2 above) is called into question.
It is in fact #2. that makes Ad Hominem an impossibilty.
(The assumption here is that the character trait mentioned is not a fabrication. If it is, then the whole argument is fallacious, but not on grounds of Ad Hominem but Libel.)
actually, it was fun seeing how long you`d go on scratching while thinking you were making me do the same.
But now it`s not fun anymore because its struck me you`re not just dumb and unfunny, but boring and unoriginal too.
But hey, scratch away all you want, if it gives you a buzz!
:))
re. godot the idiot #113:
``That’s true, [Muslims have a superiority complex] because Islam is the only religion that teaches that all human beings are equal before God, and that welfare of the other is as important as the welfare of self.``
That`s funny. Equal before God, but clearly not before the Law. Do you really want to argue this out Godot? I mean, weight of Muslim witness vs non-Muslim, dhimmi-tax and the rest? tell me... I`m waiting...
Dear tahmed32:
You wrote: {as an ex-student of a school run by roman catholics i agree with jang.}
And that is all the reason why hate mongers like masadi take refuge behind their brand of religiosity. Masadi, who was unable to get his childhood education in an enlightened way is just stuck in jealousy about all of us who were blessed by the western education system in Pakistan.
You write..{They made a real contribution to Pakistan, and some of the most successful pakistanis are products of schools run by roman catholics.} Of course, they have. All the more reason for masadi types who feel marginalized in their effort to create political problems between those who are unable to use their intellect and those who can.
We must all rise above the mumbo-jumbo of religious hatred that masadi is continuously promoting in a disguise that he is knowledgeable. This poor chap has no faculty for reason or knowledge.
Respectfully submitted,
PM, 174
That irrepressible itch is killing you, isn’t it?
Scratch scratch.
#165 by aslam644 on September 21, 2006 4:05am PT
Re: # 161
masadi
catholic church has done terrible things in the past, i remember reading a book by a missionary in which he described africans as `savage heathens`. presently catholic church is doing a lot of good especially in africa providing 1000`s of schools and clinics for the poor.
in UK some of the most dedicated teachers are irish catholic nuns, they run schools in some of the most deprived inner cities, they also provide cloths and furniture for the poor, as wel as subsidised housing, i know of a pakistani family who live in church housing, they less than half the normal rent.
``answer my questions``.... well tell you what, godidiot, since your suppposed questions are all still only in your head, I`ll allow you to answer them yourself. Knowing you, even THAT task would have you SCRATCHING you head away.
:))
PM, 172
Do you want to answer the questions I asked or you are too busy scratching that irrepressible itch of yours?
re. godot the idiot #113:
``That’s true, [Muslims have a superiority complex] because Islam is the only religion that teaches that all human beings are equal before God, and that welfare of the other is as important as the welfare of self.``
That`s funny. Equal before God, but clearly not before the Law. Do you really want to argue this out Godot? I mean, weight of Muslim witness vs non-Muslim, dhimmi-tax and the rest? tell me... I`m waiting...
.
.
Still waiting.... :-)
What are you going to do now that there`s no-one around to play lapdog to? Post more self-portraits?
WHY AD HOMENIM IS NOT EVEN POSSIBLE W.R.T ISLAM & THE PROPHET
(disclaimer: this is not an attempt to malign the prophet; simply an examination of the logical tenability of the above contention)
In fact, let us, for reasons of discretion, take Person Y, and Book X so as to not tarnish the the Prophet or the Qur`an, even unwittingly.
If you accept that:
1. The Book X is the unaltered, inconrovertible word of Allah, and
2. The Book X admonishes believers to ``obey Allah and also Person Y``
then it should follow that,
If there is a certain character trait possessed by the Person Y not worthy of emulation,
then the merit of Book X, by extension (refer to #2 above) is called into question.
It is in fact #2. that makes Ad Hominem an impossibilty.
(The assumption here is that the character trait mentioned is not a fabrication. If it is, then the whole argument is fallacious, but not on grounds of Ad Hominem but Libel.)
``in UK some of the most dedicated teachers are irish catholic nuns, they run schools in some of the most deprived inner cities, they also provide cloths and furniture for the poor, as wel as subsidised housing, i know of a pakistani family who live in church housing, they less than half the normal rent.``
But you don`t get it... This all all part of their evil plan to prosetylise the Protestants there, just like the Church`s fighting for the rights of the downtrodden in Punjabi villages is nothing but a sinister attempt to swell their ranks there.
;-)
( they less than half the normal rent)
it should read: they pay less than half normal rent.
``So far you have evaded, dodged, beat around the bush and tried all kinds of tricks to avoid answering a single question or challenge I have posed``
is patently untrue, and the posts to prove so can easily be called forth.
You really should be more careful throwing such accusation about, masadi, becasue they only serve to add to the ever-increasing list of your dubious credentials.
Godot, glad to see you`re still at the party, even if as a mere lapdog.
masadi
catholic church has done terrible things in the past, i remember reading a book by a missionary in which he described africans as `savage heathens`. presently catholic church is doing a lot of good especially in africa providing 1000`s of schools and clinics for the poor.
in UK some of the most dedicated teachers are irish catholic nuns, they run schools in some of the most deprived inner cities, they also provide cloths and furniture for the poor, as wel as subsidised housing, i know of a pakistani family who live in church housing, they less than half the normal rent.
And, incidentally, is your knowledge of Christianity so truly limited that you suppose that any anti-papist Christian MUST support and aver Luther?
Masadi mian, unlike your kind, not many lapsed Catholics feel the need to blindly follow ANY particular preacher/reformer. By and large, we like to retain our brains.
Sheesh!!
re. ``Don`t try to tell me that imperialism and Christianity have not travelled hand in hand the latter acting as the whore of the former for legitimation purposes because they have and they still make it into the vocabulary of motives of the US elite and used by its military chaplains to harden the morale of those butchering Muslims in the Middle East.
Okay, I won`t. Becasue you have probably already read about the Catholic Church`s opposition (Catholics comprise 70% of Christians) to the Iraq war itself (to say nothing of the additional war crimes) and that Bush`s own Church leaders did not support the same. You`re right, there is no point in trying to convince someone who states that ``they [when he actually means Christianspeak] still make it into the vocabulary of motives of the US elite and used by its military chaplains to harden the morale of those butchering Muslims in the Middle East.``
So let me see now... every two-bit wanna be Islamic terrorist/suicide bomber goes ``Allah-o-Akbar`` before pushing the detonator, killing innocents. Does that render Islam, per se, complicit in terrorism, or, to use your choicer word, a whore to the terrorists` often nihilist designs?
So have you thought about the inaneness of your arguments with regards to the Trinity? Or would you still like me to tear your #128 apart, if only so you don`t have to lie about my evading your questions again?
Masadi, 161
you have evaded, dodged, beat around the bush and tried all kinds of tricks
That`s because he`s too busy scratching his irrepressible itch.
So far you have evaded, dodged, beat around the bush and tried all kinds of tricks to avoid answering a single question or challenge I have posed. My problem is not with Christianity, an illogical childish theology, my problem is with evangelicals and missionaries who have followed the colonials into Muslim lands and still do {Franklin Graham was getting an orgasm shortly after the Iraq war drooling at how many souls he could save} to convert Muslim, the poorest most needy among them by deceit and material bribery while at the same time showing their `holier than thou` arrogant attitude and disrespecting the prophet based on BS, as they`ve done with other religons including Hinduism etc. Don`t try to tell me that imperialism and Christianity have not travelled hand in hand the latter acting as the whore of the former for legitimation purposes because they have and they still make it into the vocabulary of motives of the US elite and used by its military chaplains to harden the morale of those butchering Muslims in the Middle East.
Now, masadi mian. Here`s a challenge for you: Accepting that I actually mean the above.
Here`s the part of your post that, however, has little merit:
``In every corner of Rawalpindi is a Church on prime real estate, a remnant of the colonial past and then they cry big tears of not having religous freedoms. Damn hypocrites.``
Maybe it is a remnant of the colonial past. But it doesn`t detract from the argument that religious freedoms are denied minorities. Try opening a new Church to find out!
And what is a purportedly good Muslim doing decrying the fact that the Christians, thanks to their colonial past, have many Churches (even if on prime real estate)? You seem to be proving hamidm right. Of course, I will not say that your own hypocrisy has anything to do with Islam in this instance, since Islam encourages freedom of religious practice (at least for ahle-kitab, as far as I know).
Hopefully, you are just riled up over the spanking you got yesterday, and this is just an aberration on your part. I actually liked much of what you had to say in opposition to the Western Capitalist Steamroller. But now your fine words somehow ring a little hollower, because you seem to have an issue not with the secular West, per se, but with Christianity too.
Now, masadi mian. Here`s a challenge for you: Accepting that I actually mean the above.
Here`s the part of your post that, however, has little merit:
``In every corner of Rawalpindi is a Church on prime real estate, a remnant of the colonial past and then they cry big tears of not having religous freedoms. Damn hypocrites.``
Maybe it is a remnant of the colonial past. But it doesn`t detract from the argument that religious freedoms are denied minorities. Try opening a new Church to find out!
And what is a purportedly good Muslim doing decrying the fact that the Christians, thanks to their colonial past, have many Churches (even if on prime real estate)? You seem to be proving hamidm right. Of course, I will not say that your own hypocrisy has anything to do with Islam in this instance, since Islam encourages freedom of religious practice (at least for ahle-kitab, as far as I know).
Hopefully, you are just riled up over the spanking you got yesterday, and this is just an aberration on your part. I actually liked much of what you had to say in opposition to the Western Capitalist Steamroller. But now your fine words somehow ring a little hollower, because you seem to have an issue not with the secular West, per se, but with Christianity too.
A bunch of retards especially the younger of the Flanagans at St. Mary`s Academy, always thinking that being from the European nations they were somehow God`s gift to humanity and superior to the local whose kids they brutalized by cane and stick and face slaps for no reason. The Pakistani teachers, with their inferiority complexes because of these retards were always better and always taught better and didn`t behave in that arrogant manner with the students. Talk about freedom of religion, these Catholic schools prosletyze Muslims by hook or by crook forcing many to wear badges saying ``I found the truth`` meaning Christ in a Muslim land, imagine a Muslim school forcing Christians to do that here regarding Islam. In every corner of Rawalpindi is a Church on prime real estate, a remnant of the colonial past and then they cry big tears of not having religous freedoms. Damn hypocrites.
Problem with some chowkies is that they`re happy enough when I`m doing a hatchet job on their opponents, but the moment I extend the same spade-calling to their own, or try and point out that apples are different from oranges, they start seeing a hidden agenda in my theretofore sound reasoning.
Happily, the pool of such idiotic (wink, wink!) chowkies is not large at all. Not even as large as I anticipated.
`` ``godidiot: a shtty ass
Ah, thus speaketh the follower of ``logic,`` of ``morality,`` of ``decency,`` of ``virtue`` and of all that is ``good``...all Christian values.
Problem is, truth is a value thank ranks above all those you mentioned. Gotta tell it like it is.. what to do! :-)
Buddy, you ain`t foolin` nobody with your phony appeals to emotion. It`s the last refuge of the retarded scoundrel, btw.
nevertheless my friend keep up the good work -- yours kind of articles are rare gems......I hope Mohar miaN will do one day the same for his Pope -- that nut khut nut Bal -- Bal Thackray......:)))
We will never know! Deliberate misinformation and rumours etc. are tools for state`s survival.
Remember Mossad is considered to be one of the most dedicated and most sophisticated intelligence services in the world. It is quite capable of doing the trick.
Wa, salaam.
Kamath
We will never know! Deliberate misinformation and rumours etc. are tools of state`s survival.
Remember Mossad is considered to be one of the most dedicated and most sophisticated intelligence services in the world. It is quite capable of doing the trick.
Wa, salaam.
Kamath
they produced some great ladies.
PM, 147
godidiot: a shtty ass
Ah, thus speaketh the follower of ``logic,`` of ``morality,`` of ``decency,`` of ``virtue`` and of all that is ``good``...all Christian values.
Now, go scratch that irrepressible itch of yours.
I expect you to at least TRY! To actaully debate would be asking too much.
And why not? You`re used to making yourself a shtty ass in public forums day in and day out? Like today too! :))
So long! (T)
Chacha TAhmed: I posted an apology for missing your smiley earlier. Somehow it didn`t `post` through. I retract the `intellect` remark.
taking chacha echo`s advice now :)
PM, 143
Godot: So are you gonna tell us how dhimmis and half-witnesses are equal in God`s eyes, before you figure you`re out of your depth here, or are you going to use my humor to diffuse your inability to respond?
“shit” “ass” “idiot” “f_ck” is the meat of your argument in a debate in public forum and you expect me to respond and get engaged in a debate with you?
use “my” humor
You think you are “humorous”

This woman heard about a Doctor who had recently arrived from a far off land and had discovered a method to keep women looking young and glowing--without Makeup.
So she trotted & galloped to this Doctor and signed up for the ``treatment``.
But what is it do you do?
..........Well no potions, lotions, or creams, You`ve to use, what I`ve invented, the ``knob``.
The Knob?
...........Yes the Knob; it will be installed on the back of your neck, just below the head...you set it up to a desired setting....works like a charm..as long as you pay on time, your monthly installment. I rent it, never sell it.
On with the Knob.
The payments were regular and about 15 years had passed, when she was not happy with some of the features on her face.
Well! Doctor, these bags around my eyes are kind of growing big & sagging.
.................Well they ain`t no bags, they are your breasts!
Breasts!
..............Yeah ; seems you`ve been setting the knob a bit advanced.
Is that so! Well then that explains the goatee on the chin!
Moral: There is always a REASON, one can always rationalise, and the Doctor had his reason, the woman had hers.
But both had FAITH!
NOW PM , go to bed; you are keeping all awake unnecessarily
Be careful there - hearing juicy stories is NOT the only thing that catholic priests do... they have their own version of gilman fixations... :)
Sure it is, and Fish on Fridays is still the rule (in Lent). But none of this shit ever hurt anyone!
There is worse shit: Like the Church`s acceptance that homosexuality (as an attraction) is ``not of one`s choosing``, but still is a sin to practice. It`s like saying ``Sorry buddy, but God f--ked up. Not our problem.``
Then there`s the sheer illogic of denying the use of contraceptives on the grounds that ``all copulation is for procreation``, while endorsing the bilogical/rythym methods... The spectacle of a finely dressed Pope preaching the virtues of abstinence and vice of contraceptives to the barely-clad masses in Latin America was one of sheer hypocrisy.
Now THAT is shit!
Chahcha TAhemd: I guess that itch was jsut too much to resists, wasn`t it? It`s okay, it`s in keeping with your intellect.
Godot: So are you gonna tell us how dhimmis and half-witnesses are equal in God`s eyes, before you figure you`re out of your depth here, or are you going to use my humor to diffuse your inability to respond?
Re 139
this itch is irrepressible
Scratch scratch

islam on the other hand is a bazaar. with everyone mullah elbowing others to sell his stuff.
(yeah, I know i said I had to sleep half an hour ago, but this itch is irrepresible)
``Christianity, especially Catholicism, while pretending to be modern and forward facing, is actually very dogmatic and traditional.``
That`s funny. One of the main issues I had with Catholicism, growing up, was its insistence that tradition was very important, and that there was no shame at all in being dogmatic. ``Catholic dogma`` after all, is hardly a term used derogatively.
Forward facing? Ummm... Vatican II did leap forward in bounds, though some steps were taken backwards by even JP II. And not abashedly either, i might add. There was never a pretense of having to keep up with the times, so I can`t say i agree with that particular gripe.
Defend your faith like King Richard!!
PM,
Come on - don`t go wishy washy on us now. The real question is whether ``THAT shit has been repudiated or even revoked or repealed?`` I know that they don`t preach that junk any more, but has that gone the way of ``Fish on Friday?`` Believe it or not, even Exorcism is on the books - and guess what in some cases is even practiced.
Re 132
Shooo!
I don’t expect any better than that from the follower of “logic”

PM,
We bought the whopper about ``Immaculate Conception`` didn`t we? :)
But this Trinity crap is taking things a bit too far. I mean come on - three in one, one in three, and so forth. Sounds like a Three Musketeers line to me. In fact, isn`t the trinity and other Tri stuff (Trimurti, trivedi, tiranga, etc.) an Indian concept? So we have the Trinity of Brahma, Shiva, and Vishnu - possibly thousands of years BC, then all of a sudden we get the Papa, Sonny boy, and the Holy Spook. Hello, plagiarism police! Is anyone following this?
Then we have Lord Buddha saying ``Do not do unto other what you do not want them to do unto you.`` Once again, we got JC going ``Do unto others what you want them to do unto you.`` Does anyone notice the negative/positive twist here? Hello, more encroachment on the concept by the Latter Day Saints. :) Personally, I think Dubya is the ultimate rip off when he says ``Do unto others before they do unto you.``
Also, you got the Father God copulating (spiritually, of course) with a mortal female - oh how sexy!!! and the offspring is then nailed to the cross. Now, if this isn`t Greek divinity and tragedy stuff, what is? Look for some ancient epic like the Illiad or something like Oedipus Rex to see if the ancients had this concept first.
You need to bear in mind that the adherents of the Religion of Peace understand words such as peace, justice, freedom, tolerance etc. quite differently from other people. ‘Human being’, similarly, should simply be interpreted as ‘Muslim male in good standing’ to make that otherwise ludicrous sentence read true. Naturally women, Yahoods, Hunoods, Nazaras, atheists, and other inferior beings are excluded from the scope of that Grand Proclamation of Equality.
We all agree the history of the Catholic Church stinks to high heaven. And that the hierarchy are still largely a bunch of diplomatic types out to protect their `vested` interests.
I could find a lot of shit in the Church today (starting with the fact that the prelate, far from resembling Peter or a shepherd, lives a life of luxury and pomp totally antithetical to everything Christ stood for), but none of what you mentioned qualifies, for the simple reason that none of THAT shit is preached or practiced anymore.
Re 126
I`ve got more important things to do than be dragged into a purely academic debate at the moment.
Run run run…and make sure to pick up your pajama

I`ll tear your #123 to pieces tomorrow.
My my, how are we gonna sleep. Waiting with baited breath…
Acutally, I refer to others as asses and idiots purely on merit -- whether or not i`m cornered.
Of course, it takes a particular kind of idiot (the not so idiotic type, i will grant) who will use the playful name-calling as an excuse to not carry on a debate when he knows he`s cornered.
Which part of `This fairytale makes me chuckle` didn`t you get?
Now, I am perfectly willing to defend my contention that the fairytale of the Trinity does NOT necessarily offend logic. But frankly, I`ve got more important things to do than be dragged into a purely academic debate at the moment. Like sleep. So if it`s okay with you (and actually, even if it`s not), I`ll tear your #123 to pieces tomorrow. Here`s a hint, though... please try to examine the premises of your statements a little more. ``When God becomes Man, there is no GOD anymore becuase God by his attributes is not God`` makes some suppositions (on the respective natures of GOd and Man) that are only strictly Islamic. Asking most Muslims to think outside the box in this regard is, I know, like asking for the moon. But do try.
Is it Christian History? Christ`s words? What?? ``}
PM,
Christianity, especially Catholicism, while pretending to be modern and forward facing, is actually very dogmatic and traditional. Let`s talk about Catholicism, a sect of Christianity that I am very familiar with.
Catholic faith has all the pomp and ceremony intact as inherited from the early Church and possibly even from its Roman pagan ancestor.
Catholics have never repudiated the Inquisition, the Crusades, and the bloody wars and suppression of ``heretics,`` many of whom were burned alive at the stake.
Catholic Church have never questioned the violent warmongers like St Louis, who went on more Crusades than Dubya.
Catholic Church has never acknowledged its role in suppression of competing Christian beliefs and holy books - Gospels of Phillip, Gospel of Mary, etc.. Monophysite theology, Unitarianism. etc..
Catholic Church has never repudiated the papal division of the new lands to be discovered between the Spanish and the Portuguese - this was the beginning of colonialism.
There is much much more.
PM, 114
if the Greeks, and Romans and Britney Spear fans have no problems with this, why should I, eh?
That’s the best refutation of an argument I’ve ever heard…worth writing in ink of gold

God wanted to share in human suffering. So he had to have part of himself come down to earth (hey, he`s GOD, he can do that kinda stuff!) as a human, suffer and die for the consequences of man`s sins. There are many things i could call it, but llogical isn`t

I always suspected you did not have much in between your ears. When cornered, you resort to ``ass`` and ``idiot`` to calim your point is ``superior.`` What makes you think one would want to carry on a debate with you in a public forum?
More deception, is that what Christians believe that a ``part`` of God came to earth. When an eternal is ``born`` that means he is not eternal, when an immortal ``dies`` it means he was not immortal. When ``God`` becomes man, then there is no GOD anymore because man by his attributes is not God. What is illogical in the trinity is quite obvious, three is NOT one, neither is one three. When you say i) the father is God ii) the son is God iii) the Holy Ghost is God but there are not three Gods but one God, that is an illogical statement. You are not saying that the ``son`` is 1/3 God, you are saying he is WHOLLY God by himself as is the father and the HG but they are not three but one. The entire theology is absurdly illogical, and contrary to the entire OLD and New Testament. (Nowhere does Jesus himself claim to be God explicitly- which is another issue.)
Mohar Bhayya,
Grandpa Gopinath`s fold was donated after the ceremony. :(
Tahmed Sahib,
Exactly. Otherwise, the Holy Prophet (PBUH) would have left a hairy Peterullah in charge of the business. :)
`` I reject Christianity, as practiced today, as a shallow, feel-good religion, that adheres to its past only, always shoving the embarrassing shit under the rug, and repackaging the whole stinking product as ``under new management.`` ``
I am at a loss as to what it is you are referring? Always adhere`s to it`s past? whaddaya mean, mon? waht is the `embarassing shit`? What is the `whole stinking product`?
Is it Christian History? Christ`s words? What??
Didn`t somebody say ``Age of Reason`` here?... that`s what is needed for muslims... age of reason to wash away centuries of fantasy, paranoia and utter stupidity....
``That’s true, [Muslims have a superiority complex] because Islam is the only religion that teaches that all human beings are equal before God, and that welfare of the other is as important as the welfare of self.``
That`s funny. Equal before God, but clearly not before the Law. Do you really want to argue this out Godot? I mean, weight of Muslim witness vs non-Muslim, dhimmi-tax and the rest? tell me... I`m waiting...
`` ``Christians, for the most part, don`t``
That’s a laughable statement! ``
Glad to have been able to make you laugh all the way to some sense.
`` ``(although long ago they clearly did)``
Thank you for the qualification! So, to you “Christians” no longer feel superior to other religions…and is that your personal opinion or you can back it up with evidence?
Sure I`ll back it up... just as soon as you back up your original ``Muslims and Christians have an [equal] superiority complex``
Go ahead boy, am waiting with baited breath ....
Me Anti-Islam? hmmm... Yes, I did claim that the Prophet was not always as forgiving as many Muslims like to point out But if you take that as ridicule of the Prophet, or as some `proof` that I share the present Pope` view, well, then you really need to get your head examined.
Me? I`m going to lay mine down on my pillow now. Good night!
[...Islam is the only religion that teaches that all human beings are equal before God,...]
Yeah, right... that and ``there is no compulsion in islam``... pakis keep parroting this cr@p day in and day out... god know why...
Well then - you can get back to grandpa gopinath`s fold... it neither hides, nor boasts of anything... and needs no ``management`` whatsover... :))
``You know nothing of the concept of `rasool`, a messenger whose only duty was to deliver the message. If you criticize the character of the messenger in order to disprove the message, it is a clear case of Ad Hominem and it amounts to illogical argumentation.``
I know enough to know that, despite your attempt to paint the rasool as `just a messenger, for all practical purposes, he enjoys a staus of perfection, among Muslims, greater even than that of Jesus, for Christians.
And you`ve still failed to show where I have engaged in an attack on the Prophet`s character, btw. But i`ve come to expect nothing less than such baseless accusations from you, so it`s cool.
``Also it is quite baffling to hear about reason and faith coming from someone who follows an absurdly illogical concept like the trinity,``
Pray tell, masadi, what is inherently illogical about the trinity?
``...accepts the fact that God can be man,``
hey, if the Greeks, and Romans and Britney Spear fans have no problems with this, why should I, eh?
``... or an immortal is the same as being a mortal, eternal is same as being born, all-knowing is the same as having limited knowledge and other such BS when you translate Jesus into God in the flesh.``
Acutally, it all makes sense, even if it strains credulity on grounds of plausibility. God wanted to share in human suffering. So he had to have part of himself come down to earth (hey, he`s GOD, he can do that kinda stuff!) as a human, suffer and die for the consequences of man`s sins.
Frankly, this fairytale makes me chuckle. There are many things i could call it, but llogical isn`t on that list. It would take a dimwit to call it that.
PM, 101
Muslims, by and large, have this superiority complex.
That’s true, because Islam is the only religion that teaches that all human beings are equal before God, and that welfare of the other is as important as the welfare of self.
Christians, for the most part, don`t
That’s a laughable statement!
(although long ago they clearly did)
Thank you for the qualification! So, to you “Christians” no longer feel superior to other religions…and is that your personal opinion or you can back it up with evidence?
[Christians are] willing to compromise some things living in secular societies that stress tolerance for all religions.
“Tolerance” does not equal “equality.”
While educated Muslims stress ``there is no compulsion...``, far too many are indoctrinating their young into a ridicule of the very societies they have chosen to live in
Is that your personal opinion or you can provide statistical evidence of “far too many”?
Let`s not play with words. I reject Christianity, as practiced today, as a shallow, feel-good religion, that adheres to its past only, always shoving the embarrassing shit under the rug, and repackaging the whole stinking product as ``under new management.``
I also reject Islam, as preached today, as a complicated, feel-bad religion, that adheres to its past, especially in the most grotesque and nonsensical aspects, always careful to display the shit in the air so that the entire faith can appear as repulsive and uninviting to the average person. This religion does need ``new management.``
What you say might be true. But on Muslims side there is an extra dimension to our relationship with the Christians, that is separate from word of God. This relationship started in the early days of Islam, when Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) started preaching in Mecca and a small group of people accepted his message. Soon this small group was subjected to social boycott, torture, and murder for their beliefs. Prophet ordered some of these Muslims, about 84 men and women plus some children, to escape from oppression to Ethiopia. The then Ethiopian emperor, Negus, a Christian, who was on freindly terms with Propht since prophet`s trading days, provided assylum to these people. Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) remained indebted to Negus for his kindness throughout his life and always spoke high of him. Since our Prophet was so much indebted to Negus, we will remain indebted to Christians until the End of the Days comes.
Duh! The pope`s speech addressed EUROPEAN fears. ANd we`re not talking European govts here. The couple of which are on the side of the US do NOT have a majority support of their populations.
But trust you to not see the point!
PM,
I have neither the time nor the patience to go separating nominal from actual - Christians, Muslims, or Hindus. The fact is that a nominal Christian is one who does something wrong, gets caught doing something wrong, and is then labeled as a ``nominal`` Christian by the so-called ``acutal`` one - until the latter too gets caught.
We are playing the same game with UBL and his type. We call these assholes ``nominal`` Muslims or so-called Muslims. Hitler was a Christian, even a Catholic Christian - but to the Catholics he was not following his faith and therefore was atheist or at least nominally ``Christian.``
Like I proved though another avenue this guy is a total hypocrite. The US, a mostly Christian nation has been meddling in the affairs of the greater middle east for a long time, before that the British did the same and this person is talking about ``fears`` of the Christian West from Islam, a Christian West that possesses the most lethal weapons the world has seen, has used them indiscriminately against Muslims, dominates their economies and interferes in their political systems if not outright colonizing them, as it has done through the ages. Recently it has unjustifiably and illegally attacked Iraq, is getting ready to take out Iran, ruined Afghanistan fighting its cold war and looked over the destruction of Lebanon by its Zionist client, threatens Syria day and night, and this damn fool is talking about Christian fears.
``If Christians don`t have a superiority complex, are they willing to shed all the advantages, riches, gains, territories, and loot that they acquired when they did have that complex long ago?``
Look, it`s a problem of category with you. The `Christians` to which you are referring stole equally from cultures that have since embraced Christianity (think South and Latin America). They seem no more willing to repatriate stolen goods to their present-day brothers-in-faith from those nations as to the Muslims. Or to the Hindus/Chinese/Malay/Buddhists or Athiests for that matter.
Like I said, you can fool idiots but you cannot fool me, your failure to criticize Martin Luther in his comments on the prophet, and at the same time your support for Ad Hominem regarding the prophet proves to me that you accept those assertions and their use in ``argument`` against Islam.
Then he writes :
<<< Duh! It is precisely because I know of this concept in its entirety, (``Follow Allah and the Prophet``) that I claimed that you misusing the term `ad hominem` >>>
You know nothing of the concept of `rasool`, a messenger whose only duty was to deliver the message. If you criticize the character of the messenger in order to disprove the message, it is a clear case of Ad Hominem and it amounts to illogical argumentation. I don`t need to google Ad Hominem to know what it means, thank you I have been teaching social reasearch to students for a while now and the introduction often deals with logical fallacies.
Also it is quite baffling to hear about reason and faith coming from someone who follows an absurdly illogical concept like the trinity, accepts the fact that God can be man, or an immortal is the same as being a mortal, eternal is same as being born, all-knowing is the same as having limited knowledge and other such BS when you translate Jesus into God in the flesh.
One needs to differentiate between nominal Christians (of which there are many in the West) and practising ones. Bush is a Christian, even a practising one, by some definitions. Yet, the bishop of his own Church, alongwith the whole of the Catholic Church, did not support his war on (sic) Iraq.
One could argue that there is a strong Jewish agenda behind much of the aggression by the nominally Christian U.S. against the Muslims. One needs but to look at the Who`s Who of the neocon circuit to reach this conclusion.
The successful gambler, after having won millions, then has the time and means to go around preaching against the evils of gambling. :)
PM,
Surely you are stetching quite a bit. If Christians don`t have a superiority complex, are they willing to shed all the advantages, riches, gains, territories, and loot that they acquired when they did have that complex long ago?
``What you say about the Christians is true (by ``Christians,`` I mean the West.)``
..and therein lies your grave error. The Western Christian are the most nominal types around. Your sample is immediately biased.
``The trouble is that both Islam and Christianity want to dominate the world because each thinks its way is superior.``
I beg to differ. Muslims, by and large, have this superiority complex. Christians, for the most part, don`t (although long ago they clearly did), and are willing to compromise some things living in secular societies that stress tolerance for all religions. While educated Muslims stress ``there is no compulsion...``, far too many are indoctrinating their young into a ridicule of the very societies they have chosen to live in, freely practise their religion, and prosper materially.
While the pope`s choice of words was clearly wrong, the fears he wanted to adress were quite valid.
Godot Sahib,
Thank you for your feedback. I am glad that you pointed out the struggle between Muslims and Christians as if it were some sort of Superbowl to the death. Whether Islam dominates or Christianity prevails, I am not interested. In their current forms, both religions present themselves as the Hertz and Avis, the Republicans and Democrats, or the Yankees and Red Sox of a sick, macabre game of ``divinely-ordained`` bloodbath. If they truly believed in God as much as they believe in their own self-righteousness, they wouldn`t behave the way they do. By the way, the Jews, Hindus, and Sikhs are not far behind in their own brand of ``hate thy neighbor`` for the ``love of God(s).``
``Any Muslim who has even the basic level education in Qura`n can never feel any animosity towards Christians or Jews. As a matter of fact Qura`n explicitly calls both Jews and Christians as early Muslim nations. ``
With all due respect, the Gospel calls ALL people Children of God, and exhorts Christians to love even their perennial enemies. However, none of this keeps even the religiously educated among them from hating others.
In a sense you are preaching to the converted. But thanks anyways. :-) It was sweet of you to take the time.
I much prefer Salim`s (and, ages ago, your friend Hobbes`) view that the Ummah should consists of ALL right-think, right-acting folks, not just the children of Abraham, who, incidentally, have been the collective scourge of the earth for most of their history, IMHO.
echo sahib has been enlightening in providing quranic refernces for why this may not be such a far-fetched idea.
Salim, Re 85
Salim, that was an excellent post. We need more Muslims like you to free the Ummah from the shackles of ignorance.
What you say about the Christians is true (by ``Christians,`` I mean the West.) However, they have made peace with the Jews (although grudgingly...deep inside, they still carry hatred for them), and they will grudgingly make peace with the Muslims.
The trouble is that both Islam and Christianity want to dominate the world because each thinks its way is superior. History will keep repeating itself till one gives up, and most likely it will be the Christian West because of sheer number...there are and will be just too many Muslims, and the Christian West is dwindling...vanishing of the White race is the biggest fear openly expressed by Peter Drucker.
Pray tell to what it is you are referring. Otherwise you`re merely continuing with your unsubstantiated accusations and guesswork on my positions, which, perhaps is too nuanced for your comprehension.
``Regarding the prophethood, I don`t expect you to know anything about the Quranic concept of rasool to conclude that the ``proof is in the prophet`s walk``,
Duh! It is precisely because I know of this concept in its entirety, (``Follow Allah and the Prophet``) that I claimed that you misusing the term `ad hominem`. Apparently even googling it out didn`t help you much.
``That said Ad Hominem is illogical, a fallacy of argumentation and no matter how you try to justify it it is not valid and when the sum total of you people`s arguments against Islam is based on such character assassinations of the prophet``
Now, lest you actually pull off this Strawman, could you please cite an actual example of how ``us people ``engage in charachter assasinations`` of the Holy Prophet? In fact, tell you what masadi, drop the Circumstantial Ad Hominem and the Ad Hominem Tu Quoque in your approach (especially since you really haven`t begun to credibly establish my backgorund), and simply point out what is is that I have said or quoted that proves that I am negatively disposed to prophet Muhammed or Islam.
P.S. Criticizing isn`t tantamount to disliking or disrespecting, tough as it may be for some Muslims to wrap their heads `round this.
As for the Quranic quotation you provided, thank you. The request was sincere, although it seems you didn`t believe so. Fool, I said many, many posts ago that i was sure that Islamic scripture could be shown to encourage reasoning.
PM
Any Muslim who has even the basic level education in Qura`n can never feel any animosity towards Christians or Jews. As a matter of fact Qura`n explicitly calls both Jews and Christians as early Muslim nations. Unfortunately, these early Muslims have deviated from the righteous path. These deviations at the core level are:
1. Jews, even though remain vehementlly Monotheists, have turned religion of Islam into a racial fraternity. The concept of this rational fraternity has absolutely no place in a religion that has a core belief in One True God for all. Islam has reminded Jews of their waywardness in this regard.
2. Jesus Christ (pbuh) came to this world to reform the religion of Abraham and Moses. He did not start a new religion and never did he claim that. The religion of Abraham and Moses was Monotheism. Christ was never charged with a crime of starting a religion of Trinity even by the worst of his enemy Jews while Christ was on trial for ``Blasphemy`` and eventually lead to the gallows. The concept of Trinity was the corruption in the religion that treaded into it, probably, through the influence of Roman & Greek mythology quite late.
3. Incidently Jews, themselves were the first who witnessed the miraculous birth of Jesus (pbuh) and saw infant Jesus (pbuh) speak in his crib. They never doubted the character of Mariam (pbuh) until jesus (pbuh) grew up and started to reform the Children of Israel. At this time Jews started throwing mud on Mariam`s character and started doubting the birth of Jesus, even though in their heart they knew that they were lying. They hounded disciples of Christ to the extent that Christians eventually had to invent the concept of son of god. Qura`n reminds Christians that He is Over & Above these human attributes. Qura`n tells Christians that the argument to counter the Jewsish allegations on Christs birth was simple. Christians should have told them that you (Jews) should really doubt the birth of Adam who was created without father AND mother. The birth of Adam is a belief that all Jews belived to be true from Abraham to Moses and to this day. Qura`n reminds Christians that by corrupting their religion thus, i.e. turning His prophet into his son they have committed a grave sin against One True God.
So, my brother, PM, it is my invitation to you to reject all the false beliefs and come to the True Belief in One True God. Reject all those beliefs that are contradictory to the core of your own belief. You have to understand that what I am offering you is not a contradiction to the core of your belief. The mindless contradictions are the ``extras``, that have crept into Christianity. Reject all the labels, like Christian, the adherent of Christ, and, Jew the memeber of Sematic race, and become just the Monotheist. Keep in mind that the word ``muslim`` is just an Arabic equivalent of word Monotheist.
Godspeed.
You merely proved my point regarding your hypocrisy. You have similar views of the prophet, based on ahistorical documents and tales at best, as did the pope. It didn`t take much to bring that out, so what was the purpose behind your rant.
Regarding the prophethood, I don`t expect you to know anything about the Quranic concept of rasool to conclude that the ``proof is in the prophet`s walk``, that said Ad Hominem is illogical, a fallacy of argumentation and no matter how you try to justify it it is not valid and when the sum total of you people`s arguments against Islam is based on such character assassinations of the prophet, based on documents whose historicity you have not bothered to check, it tells me how sorry your entire case against Islam is. By the way Jesus wasn`t walking much of a walk if we go by the discription in the gospels, I dont use that as any argument but there is much in there as is throughout the Old Testament about the other ``prophets`` to make a stronger case against them than against prophet Muhammed if you follow that illogical path.
PM in #86
<<< Your first two points should have sufficed. It would, however be useful for all those purporting that Islam is somehow inherently opposed to reason, if you could provide some references. >>>
Actually no reference is needed for this assertion even the most ignorant reader of the Quran can see that every few pages have many exhortations to reason and ponder and think. In fact this one lays the foundation of the scientific method of logical reasoning based upon empirical evidence (3:190-191)


Also see 4:182 and 47:24
<<<
With all due respect, the rest of your points were pure gobblydegook. Logic having its limits is no excuse for faith to go against propositions/proofs WITHIN those limits, which is what most find offensive. To quote Fromm (yes, I know this doesn`t prove anything, but hopefully is will ` ring true`) Faith may transcend reason; but it never opposes it. >>>
If you can`t comprehend English that is not my problem. I did not say belief should go against reason within the limits of logic.
Re: # 78 by masadi on September 20, 2006 10:45am PT
Dear Masadi:
Notwithstanding that you continue to lie and deceive about this issue, I do acknowledge that at least you responded to my question to you as a person of faith. You have still not emphatically stated that you are a person of faith, or that you are person of reason. Which one are you? Knowing your religious upbringing, your vacillation and gibberish response is understandable.
I have never asked what is written or not written in your holy books. I just want to know why most Muslims are not reasonable people?
Using your weapons of mass deflection, you conveniently write:
{1. Whenever Islam/Quran discusses anything it emphasizes reason and argumentation and empirical evidence (seeing hearing thinking) to determine the truth, more so than any religious text out there}
Not going too much into the 1400 years of Muslim history, in a brief span of 80 years of its existence, what was the main reason that Muslims captured most of the Persian Empire and northern Africa, and parts of Sind?
After the death of the Prophet, on what authority was Khalid-Bin-Walid, the Arab General killing the recently converted Muslims, who were leaving the nascent religion?
Or are you suggesting that for a Muslim, if it becomes reasonable to convert to any other religion, he/she can easily get out of Islam? Then, why are they called “murtad”, and are considered “wajib-ul-Qatl”?
How do majority of Muslims behave these days? Why were those three Hindoo girls who were forcefully converted to Islam, recently in Karachi, not allowed to return home to their parents?
Your deceiving and rubbish intellect has failed you once again. You know very well that in Islamic world Muslim have these “wajib-ul-Qatl” values ever since the death of the Prophet.
{2. It emphasizes reason more than even the exhortation to prayer.}
Then why do Muslims get so agitated on little things? Is it reasonable to burn churches and kill Christians because of comments made by Pope? Are threats made by Muslims appropriate and reasonable?
{4. Belief arrived at through any avenue other than reason cannot be distinguished as true compared to other similar beliefs.
If that is so then why do Muslims kill those who want to get out of their faith?
{5. Logic does have its limits, proof was presented in 1931, but most questions of belief have nothing to do with such limits and reason can be applied effectively to arrive at logical conclusions}
The question to you is about being a believer in being a Muslim. Can you reject some parts of your holy books?
{6. The origin of the universe pre-planck time is just as much a matter of speculation for scientists as it is for believers, indirect evidence like the fine tuning of the universe that makes chance untenable supports the believers point of view as far as empirical evidence goes, the uniformity of universal law and the common origin of everything proves monotheism as against competing explanations.}
The question to you is about being a believer in being a Muslim. Can you reject some parts of your holy books?
{7. All this is much beyond the intellect of behram, he will keep repeating his tunes, know that he is not only dishonest when he says I didn`t answer him before he is also a damn fool.}
Agreed, and am still developing my intellect. In the meantime, what are doing? Just hyperventilating between your holy books and your social sciences.
Can you develop your belief? Or did it come fully developed to you? Eh!
Respectfully submitted,
What you say makes sense, but interfaith dialogue is needed, if only to counter the forces that actively seek to drive a wedge between the communities.
With all due respect, that letter was a bunch of baloney!
``I cannot figure out why people are offended by the Pope`s remarks about Islam. He is not a Muslim and is not obliged to think anything good about Islam.``
No he`s not. But he`s expected to know better and not quote rabid Islamophobes for virtually no reason.
``Are we to be offended that the Pope is ignorant about Islam?``
Who knows the minds of some Muslims!
``Do we think God is offended by the Pope`s words?``
Damn right some of us do, and what`s more, he`s mandated us to let the pope know full well too!
Do we need the Pope`s validation or respect?
It would be kinda nice! Certainly, we don`t this disrespect, and more seriously, this misrepresentation of your Prophet and Religion when we`re already having to battle misconceptions propagated from other quaters.
When the non-believers used to torment and ridicule the Prophet Muhammad about his religion, did he demand their respect or protest or kill?
Actually yes. Some of us are fond of retelling the story of the old lady who regularly threw her thrash on the Prophet (PBUH) as he passed by her house-- whom he readily forgave. But some of us would like to take the more `effective` approach of dealing with his critics (specially those with the power of influence) as approved of by the Prophet (PBUH) himself in the case of Asma bint Marvan, after he`d gained some political power.
``No, because that wouldn`t make any sense.``
Made sense to him at times.
``Was it politically a mistake of the Pope? Of course. Was it in the best interest of interfaith dialogue? Of course not. But it`s even more astonishing how much Muslims care about what the Pope says.``
No it`s not!
I am not in favor of convincing others to love us. Perhaps our actions, their prejudices, and our reactions are responsible for the current state of affairs. I think that the problems of Muslims and Islam are primarily internal. We need to modernize, become more flexible, tolerate disssent among ourselves, show more compassion, especially to each other, and not be so defensive about anything said about our faith.
All this interfaith shinterfaith (thanks to Tahmed Sahib for coining this futile exercise!), dialogue is for people who cannot succeed in public office, but want to stamp the mark of importance on their unfulfilled ambitions. I do not like ISNA, ICNA, CHICKNA, CAIR, AMC, or others speaking on my behalf. Thye are wrong and will do more damage than good. Why don`t they go to Pakistan, Palestine, BD, India, and Eye Rack to clean up the mess there?
Yes, there a parallel growth of fear in the Christian West of jihaadic Islam. Who can blame them, when you have homegrown jihaadis the likes of the Buffalo 7 and the Brampton 8? There is also the incessant media pouring forth images and soundbites reinforcing these fears.
At the same time, there are a growing number of these folks, mostly Christian, willing to explore root causes and conspiracy theories; rather than take the Clash of Civ position.
Do I get a dissenting vote? :)
Let`s admit it: Salim is an ass after all! :-)
(hatchet buried for the time being)
Your first two points should have sufficed. It would, however be useful for all those purporting that Islam is somehow inherently opposed to reason, if you could provide some references.
With all due respect, the rest of your points were pure gobblydegook. Logic having its limits is no excuse for faith to go against propositions/proofs WITHIN those limits, which is what most find offensive. To quote Fromm (yes, I know this doesn`t prove anything, but hopefully is will ` ring true`) Faith may transcend reason; but it never opposes it.
Instead of concentrating on which western leader, author, or musician said the most insulting thing about our Holy Prophet (PBUH), we should focus on what we need to do to make our own religion meaningful to ourselves in this era. Let`s admit it - thanks to the Crusades and centuries of warfare and colonialism, our religion, our Holy Prophet (PBUH), and our heroes will never be accepted in a positive light by Christians. In fact, there is a much better chance of interfaith dialogue with Jews, Hindus, and Sikhs - if we haven`t already turned these people off due to our inflexible notions of truth, monotheism, and Isaac vs. Ismail.
Dante placed the Holy Prophet (PBUH) and Imam Ali (PBUH) in the deepest part of Hell in his ``Inferno.`` Now, we could burn all available copies of that stupid book, tear up the Italian flag, or even write our own version that places all the Popes, from Peter to Benedict of the Sixteen Candles, in the hottest hole in hell. We could do all that or we could simply use the ``sticks and stones may break my bones ....`` principle and say ``So what?``
Let`s ignore these deliberate attempts to bait Muslims in displaying the most violent, irrational, and comical aspects of our emotions. The proper response is to modernize our religion - updating all trivial and outdated practices of burka, beards, superstitions, prejudice, and divisive dogma. Make the umbrella of Islam wide enough to include everyone who wants to join, flexible enough to tolerate individual thinking, and making everything except the belief in Allah and His Prophet (PBUH) optional. After all, Islam does specify judgment to be the domain of Allah. Application of Shariah, role of Mullahs, subjugation of women, persecution of minorities, and violence against everyone, including our own, will soon disappear from our midst. The UBLs, MMAs, AlKayda, Jamaat-e-Everything people can then do what is most important - helping the poor, the sick, the illiterate, the handicapped, the dispossessed, and the orphans and widows lead more productive and honorable lives. Read the passage about ``It`s not piety that you face east or west ...``
[published in today`s Toronto Star]
``hUm ko uun sey wafa kee hai uummeed
Jo naheeN jaantey, Wafa kia hai``............Ghalib
tr:
We expect some some civic cordiality
of the very ones who are devoid it``
Vatican fears violent backlash
Sept. 18.
I cannot figure out why people are offended by the Pope`s remarks about Islam. He is not a Muslim and is not obliged to think anything good about Islam. Are we to be offended that the Pope is ignorant about Islam? Do we think God is offended by the Pope`s words? Do we need the Pope`s validation or respect?
When the non-believers used to torment and ridicule the Prophet Muhammad about his religion, did he demand their respect or protest or kill? No, because that wouldn`t make any sense. He prayed that their ignorance would be lifted.
Was it politically a mistake of the Pope? Of course. Was it in the best interest of interfaith dialogue? Of course not. But it`s even more astonishing how much Muslims care about what the Pope says.
Yamin Bismilla, Brampton
`` the evangelical Pakistani Chirstian community ...uses all kinds of deceit to convert Muslims and whose whole argumentation has been borrowed from the Crusaders and their Ad Hominem arguments against the prophet.``
Just fyi, there is nothing logically wrong with employing ad hominem arguments against the prophet, since a prophet is supposed to walk the talk, and his example is to followed in every respect. It`s not as if the ad hominem is used to defeat some abstract philosophy.
(Do you even know when ad hominem is a fallacious argument, or are you given to throwing around Latin words to sound intelligent?)
Now go ahead and read that as an attack on Islam too, masadi.
Re-read my article for an answer, or, maybe, for why the question is misdirected. C`mon, you can`t really be as reading-challenged as masadi here, who can`t seem to see what his problem is.
Here`s a clue masadi: Don`t expect me to answer ANYTHING from the peg you`ve hung me on.
begin quote
Arguing that Huntington’s thesis has some “validity”, Lord Carey quoted him as saying: “Islam’s borders are bloody and so are its innards. The fundamental problem for the West is not Islamic fundamentalism. It is Islam, a different civilisation whose people are convinced of the superiority of their culture and are obsessed with the inferiority of their power.”
end quote
Lord Carey went on to argue that a “deep-seated Westophobia” has developed in recent years in the Muslim world and also, in another part of his address, referred to Western moral relativism as one of the causes of Muslim outrage.
However, in praising the pope`s speech as “extraordinarily effective and lucid” he seems to have problems reading between the lines. He said, ``The actual essay is an extraordinarily effective and lucid thesis exploring the weakness of secularism and the way that faith and reason go hand in hand,” he said.
Wishful thinking! The pope did no such thing. The pope`s speech was a CALL for wedding of faith and reason. IF there is a weakness in secularism, or a `proof` that faith and reason can indeed be wedded, the pope`s speech did little to show either.
He described the two civilisations as “polarised and uncomprehending” and said that the Danish cartoons controversy last March showed “two world views colliding in public space with no common point of reference”
But of course, he could not see the implications of moral relativism in his choosing not to take a side on this particular issue.
Phooey!!
That ought to have masadi scratching his head now.. ;-)
Since you seem to know all about my religious affiliation, I`m sure if you think about it a little, you`ll figure out the rest of my positions too, including my take on Luther`s words. >>>
I asked a very simple question. Martin Luther`s BS about the prophet was much maginified though of the same dimwit calibre as the pope. Do you condemn it similarly or not. You have been evading this question, it is quite obvious why you so liberally condemn the pope while believing in much the same about the prophet as what he said, as you fail to condemn Martin Luther. You can strutt around here posing as an open minded liberally oriented person but you don`t fool me, neither do the evangelical Pakistani Chirstian community that uses all kinds of deceit to convert Muslims and whose whole argumentation has been borrowed from the Crusaders and their Ad Hominem arguments against the prophet.
pm
I want an answer directly from horses mouth. I want to understand how Christian Lions are planning to welcome Jesus (pbuh)
Once again, Masadi, do you use your reason or do you remain a believer? You have a choice: Reason or Belief? Can a believer use the faculty of reasoning? >>>
Behram has been singing this tune for several months, I have answered him multiple times but he keeps repeating his tune showing that he possesses what I used to call the ``mirasi mentality`` and now may be referred to as (per Zeemax`s term), the ``bhand mentality``.
1. Whenever Islam/Quran discusses anything it emphasises reason and argumentation and empirical evidence (seeing hearing thinking) to determine the truth, moreso than any religious text out there
2. It emphasises reason more than even the exhortation to prayer.
3. The intellectual traditon of science is actually a traditon of people of belief, I am not talking about the Church which has been anti-science with anything going against its dogma , but about individual scientists that laid the foundations of the Rennaissance.
4. Belief arrived at through any avenue other than reason cannot be distinguished as true compared to other similar beliefs
5. Logic does have its limits, proof was presented in 1931, but most questions of belief have nothing to do with such limits and reason can be applied effectively to arrive at logical conclusions
6. The origin of the universe pre-planck time is just as much a matter of speculation for scientists as it is for believers, indirect evidence like the fine tuning of the universe that makes chance untenable supports the believers point of view as far as empirical evidence goes, the uniformity of universal law and the common origin of everything proves monotheism as against competing explanations.
7. All this is much beyond the intellect of behram, he will keep repeating his tunes, know that he is not only dishonest when he says I didn`t answer him before he is also a damn fool.
Respectfully submitted,
`heard of this cool thing on the internet called Google? :)
Since you seem to know all about my religious affiliation, I`m sure if you think about it a little, you`ll figure out the rest of my positions too, including my take on Luther`s words.
Yours in hypocrisy,
PM
PM
What is Catholicism`s position on Rapture, Armagadon, and Second Comming.
I am a born-again hypocrite.
There! Now do you feel better, and like debating the issue and not my character? >>>
I was not debating your character, the word hypocrite was preceded by a qualifying question which you avoided which proves you are a hypocrite, the question was:
Since you are not a Catholic you are being liberal with criticizing the pope for things he said about the prophet which PALE in comparison to the BS Martin Luther said about the prophet. Are you willing to criticize Martin Luther similarly was the issue question. Since you are not, it shows that you are just being a hypocrite~
I know I will get flak for this, but the killing of one nun in a place already rife with religious tensions, is a swallow that does not make a winter. Neither is there evidence that this killing had anything to do with the pope`s comments. If one were to believe all that is said about the `ugly` reactions of Muslims (remember, there are one billion of them), one would expect more bloodshed, speaking from a strictly statistical perspective.
As for calls for the pope`s death, again, I have been following the protests too. I have yet to see a placard calling for his death. I am not denying that such did exist, but the fact that they were not readily visible says something about their extent, and should inform on the contention that ``the reactions have been disgusting and violent.``
Now, compare this (and I`m not bringing this in just start a cross-border pissing match) with the REALLY violent reactions to Godhra. Admittedly, Godhra was not some speech, but the Hindus didn`t stop to think of whether they could possibly punish only the purported criminals.
I need to stress the point here. Hindus and Hinduism are, rightly, not judged on the actions of a few. Muslims and Islam increasingly are. Much of this has to do with the public imagination, influenced by media soundbites and reinforced by speeches such as the pope`s.
And, btw, Churches are burned in India with alarming frequency, certainly more, even per capita, than in Pakistan. I can provide references if pushed, mind you. Again, the intent here is not to denounce Hindus en masse, but to show that the actions of a few should not colour our perception of the whole.
Dear behram: I hear you. Your post merits a thoughtful response. Hopefully I will get down to it later tonight.
...
``>
...
on
September 20, 2006 6:21am PT
ref #32 and #36 yes that is interesting - esp Tahmed32`s last line ``The hindus of the subcontinent went off on Sir Syed`s track (the Age of Reason) and the muslims on the Iqbal track (the Romantic Movement). ``
I would say the the hindus wwent down this track even before Syed tried to do it with the muslims.
Nevertheless, very precisely put. Esp you reference to Nietszche. However, I wonder if people know of the connection between Iqbal and germany?
On a side note: its interesting to see today`s Times. Carey`s speech, which can be found here Carey backs Pope and issues warning on `violent` Islam is an interesting read.
This coupled with John Reid`s speech today, it appears the writings have started appearing on the wall (can be found here Watch your Son`s for extremism), and taken with the unreasoned protests of the reps in the hall like this guy

(we UKites know this guy very well, and all those who donot follow his line should be very scared of him), TAHMED32`s argument about ``reason`` etc becomes even more urgent.
Dear Patrick:
I have lived all my life amongst muslims, and I do love their culture, and I have always been told that intellect has no place amongst muslims, and that is exactly what I have been asking masadi for a long time. As a believer, and most of my Muslim friends have educated me on this, a Muslim cannot have faculty of reasoning.
Pope’s comments notwithstanding, the crux of the matter still remains that emotional outbursts have no place in today’s society.
{But what, particularly, is so bad in the general reactions so far? }
Burning and attacking churches in the Muslim society.
{And are the values of consideration and temperance in speech (things demanded by Muslims) somehow incompatible with modernity?} No, and have you ever engaged an ordinary Muslim in any intellectual conversation. Most of them are seaming with passion instead of reasoning. Heck, I met some last night at a local restaurant. This passion is a disease amongst a lot of Pakistani Muslims.
{But to suggest that Muslims do not condemn Islamic terror is a misleading, if convenient argument.}
It took a long while for Muslims to come forward on this issue. Why is it still so scary for minorities to live in Muslim dominated society?
{The writer, like behram, would like to see the mullahs take to the street denouncing suicide bombers and Islamic terrorism in general. }
I do not expect reason from mullahs, but I do expect reasoning from the head of CAIR in the US. Recently, he came on Public TV, to enlighten us about this issue. To say the least, I was embarrassed to have such representative of our community. Questions asked were conveniently sidetracked.
{But this expectation seems to deny the existence of aggravating circumstances against the Muslim world, to which `terrorism` is often a reaction, if sometimes an inordinate one.}
How does killing of minorities and forceful conversion to Islam of some in Muslim societies have any relationship with ``the existence of aggravating circumstances``?
{behram:
.... I am willing to bet my last rupee that someone can come up with an ayat or hadith that exalts the use of reason too. But that hardly settles the question of whether is actually is tenable, practically. }
And that is exactly the Muslim majority should be working towards, is it not? To me the proof is in the building structure and not in its specifications.
{As for your question to masadi...} My question to masadi has been on this chowk for several months now, and it is generated from my personal experience with Muslim society at large, and it has still not been answered.
Remember, I am not a theologian. I am just a simple man who has respect for intellect. I wanted to understand what masadi has to say on this subject.
Respectfully submitted,
Of course, the reaction to the pope has been outrageous and disgusting. Threats of violence, public demonstrations that involve calls to kill the pope, the murder of an italian nun. Who are you kidding?
The pope may deserve all kinds of criticism, no question about it. But the real shame here is the reaction to his words.
Not very strong on comprehension skills, are we??
Let`s see who the needs to take off the blinkers.
Let`s catalog the logical flaws in the text the pope chose to quote (and ponder on why he needs `reason` to expand beyond logical empiricism):
``The emperor must have known that Sura 2,256 reads: `There is no compulsion in religion.` According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Quran, concerning holy war.``
If the emperor knew of the instructions, the good pope sure as hell doesn`t. First of all, Holy wars or jihaad were the ones to be fought to overcome oppression and injustice; not the ones to swell the ranks of the believers. This is clearly delineated in the Qu`ran which stipulates the conditions for jihad. This does not contrdatict the ``no compulsion in Religion`` dictum.
The other kinds of wars... the expansionist ones, could be called holy wars only if one is willing to label the Conquistadores religious warriors too. In any case, these wars were NOT fought to gain converts. If anything, the Muslims conquerors would have hoped that the folks in lands they conquered would not convert, as that would mean that less jaiyza (a tax paid by non Muslims) for their coffers. This is well-documented.
So the pope`s quoting some dickhead explaining why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable, is really an instance of clever strawman building. And to quote his statement about Muhammed legacy being ``evil and inhuman`` goes beyond what one would consider a logically defeatable statement, useable in a debate. It is just plain provocative.
Whether or not Muslims should react violently to his suggestions is one question. Whether those suggestions were plainly provocative and really unworthy of debate -- to say nothing of their being unbecoming a Christian-- is really another matter altogether.
so keemath you know this for a fact. Behrahm! behaya! Behoda! Besharm! stop peddling these silly conspiracy stories. Were totally together here!
http://www.tech-sol.net/humor/chinese2.gif
that papal apology which originated in the states

now if you cannot read chinese titlt your head 90 degrees to your right!
You are right in quoting, ``Bill Maher the comedian who himself is a Catholic said last night -- the Catholics don`t take the Pope seriously -- why the Muslims take our Pope so seriously...``
I have a strong feeling that Mossad has been working behind the scenes to make the Pope look bad and come out with his talk in Germany. It is believed that Zionists wanted a revenge on Catholic Church. So they wanted to drive a wedge between Christaians and Muslims.
Kamath
if you read the pope text and i quote
````In the seventh conversation edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that Sura 2,256 reads: `There is no compulsion in religion.` According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Quran, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the `Book` and the `infidels,` he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness, a brusqueness which leaves us astounded, on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: `Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.` The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. `God,` he says, `is not pleased by blood -- and not acting reasonably is contrary to God`s nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats ... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death ...`
``
you will see he has given the muslims a link to go beyond the crap about peaceful islam etc.
please read the actuallite text of the papee. blinkered people.
``By their reaction to the pope`s speech, some Muslim leaders showed again that Islam has a problem with modernity that is going to have to be solved by a debate within Islam.``
I would like to know what, in the reaction, showed again that Islam has a problem with modernity?
Are Muslims baying for the pope`s blood? There is a lot of bluster, yes, and the spectacle of a thousand bearded folks chanting anti-pope slogans makes for a rather unnerving experience. But what, particularly, is so bad in the general reactions so far?
And are the values of consideration and temperance in speech (things demanded by Muslims) somehow incompatible with modernity?
``The day Muslims condemn Islamic terror with the same vehemence they condemn those who criticize Islam, an attempt at dialogue--and at improving relations between the Western and Islamic worlds--can begin. ``
This is pure BS! There are many things wrong with the Muslim world, including its inability to rein in it`s extremists. But to suggest that Muslims do not condemn Islamic terror is a misleading, if convenient argument. How many more fatwas from the grand mufti of Egypt denouncing killing of innocents do we need?
The writer, like behram, would like to see the mullahs take to the street denouncing suicide bombers and Islamic terrorism in general. But this expecation seems to deny the existence of aggravating circumstances against the Muslim world, to which `terrorism` is often a reaction, if sometimes an inordinate one.
With due respect, the article you posted is rather disingenuous in places. Take for example the statement that ``the pope didn`t endorse the words of the emperor``. Another is the claim that Christianity is amenable to reason because John starts of his gospel with ``In the beginning there was the Word..`` I am willing to bet my last rupee that someone can come up with an ayat or hadith that exalts the use of reason too. But that hardly settles the question of whether is actually is tenable, practically.
The article in #59 is a much more rigorous examination of the speech and it`s intent.
As for your question to masadi... it points out the contradiction in the pope`s own speech.. on the one hand, he would like to see the category of reason expanded to include more than mere empiricism. On the other hand, he decries Islam for believing in a God that trandscends reason.
If what [the pope] said is factually incorrect, that inaccuracy should be challenged. The Christians` own gory early history does not invalidate his statements. There is no reason why ANYBODY (including the Pope) should indulge in political correctness.
This is rather naive, as is the contention that the pope, as a spiritual but not a political leader (which, in fact, he s as head of the Vatican state) has no responsibility to not only speak the truth, but also to not distort it or play with it in a manner as to create unnecessary discord.
And the criticisms with his speech doesn`t centre on ``factual inaccuracies`` anyway. It was about some of the more insidious implications of his thesis and about his choice of historical examples to prove his point -- all, IMHO, rather uncharitable at best and hypocritical at worst.
I guess my writing was too nuanced for your liking?
I think this is a very exhaustive analysis with a very apt title indeed. You might like it.
PLease access the Vatican website as well, below within the text.
Faith, Reason and Politics: Parsing the Pope`s Remarks
September 19, 2006 19 39 GMT
By George Friedman
On Sept. 12, Pope Benedict XVI delivered a lecture on ``Faith, Reason and the University`` at the University of Regensburg. In his discussion (full text available on the
Vatican Web site) the pope appeared to be trying to define a course between dogmatic faith and cultural relativism -- making his personal contribution to the old debate about faith and reason. In the course of the lecture, he made reference to a ``part of the dialogue carried on -- perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara -- by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both.``
Benedict went on to say -- and it is important to read a long passage to understand his point -- that:
``In the seventh conversation edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that Sura 2,256 reads: `There is no compulsion in religion.` According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Quran, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the `Book` and the `infidels,` he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness, a brusqueness which leaves us astounded, on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: `Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.` The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. `God,` he says, `is not pleased by blood -- and not acting reasonably is contrary to God`s nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats ... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death ...`
``The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: Not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God`s nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: `For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent.```
The reaction of the Muslim world -- outrage -- came swift and sharp over the passage citing Manuel II: ``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.`` Obviously, this passage is a quote from a previous text -- but equally obviously, the pope was making a critical point that has little to do with this passage.
The essence of this passage is about forced conversion. It begins by pointing out that Mohammed spoke of faith without compulsion when he lacked political power, but that when he became strong, his perspective changed. Benedict goes on to make the argument that violent conversion -- from the standpoint of a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, and therefore shaped by the priority of reason -- is unacceptable. For someone who believes that God is absolutely transcendent and beyond reason, the argument goes, it is acceptable.
Clearly, Benedict knows that Christians also practiced forced conversion in their history. He also knows that the Aristotelian tendency is not unique to Christianity. In fact, that same tendency exists in the Muslim tradition, through thinkers such as al-Farabi or Avicenna. These stand in relation to Islam as Thomas Aquinas does to Christianity or Maimonides to Judaism. And all three religions struggle not only with the problem of God versus science, but with the more complex and interesting tripolar relationship of religion as revelation, reason and dogmatism. There is always that scriptural scholar, the philosopher troubled by faith and the local clergyman who claims to speak for God personally.
Benedict`s thoughtful discussion of this problem needs to be considered. Also to be considered is why the pope chose to throw a hand grenade into a powder keg, and why he chose to do it at this moment in history. The other discussion might well be more worthy of the ages, but this question -- what did Benedict do, and why did he do it -- is of more immediate concern, for he could have no doubt what the response, in today`s politically charged environment, was going to be.
A Deliberate Move
Let`s begin with the obvious: Benedict`s words were purposely chosen. The quotation of Manuel II was not a one-liner, accidentally blurted out. The pope was giving a prepared lecture that he may have written himself -- and if it was written for him, it was one that he carefully read. Moreover, each of the pope`s public utterances are thoughtfully reviewed by his staff, and there is no question that anyone who read this speech before it was delivered would recognize the explosive nature of discussing anything about Islam in the current climate. There is not one war going on in the world today, but a series of wars, some of them placing Catholics at risk.
It is true that Benedict was making reference to an obscure text, but that makes the remark all the more striking; even the pope had to work hard to come up with this dialogue. There are many other fine examples of the problem of reason and faith that he could have drawn from that did not involve Muslims, let alone one involving such an incendiary quote. But he chose this citation and, contrary to some media reports, it was not a short passage in the speech. It was about 15 percent of the full text and was the entry point to the rest of the lecture. Thus, this was a deliberate choice, not a slip of the tongue.
As a deliberate choice, the effect of these remarks could be anticipated. Even apart from the particular phrase, the text of the speech is a criticism of the practice of conversion by violence, with a particular emphasis on Islam. Clearly, the pope intended to make the point that Islam is currently engaged in violence on behalf of religion, and that it is driven by a view of God that engenders such belief. Given Muslims` protests (including some violent reactions) over cartoons that were printed in a Danish newspaper, the pope and his advisers certainly must have been aware that the Muslim world would go ballistic over this. Benedict said what he said intentionally, and he was aware of the consequences. Subsequently, he has not apologized for what he said -- only for any offense he might have caused. He has not retracted his statement.
So, why this, and why now?
Political Readings
Consider the fact that the pope is not only a scholar but a politician -- and a good one, or he wouldn`t have become the pope. He is not only a head of state, but the head of a global church with a billion members. The church is no stranger to geopolitics. Muslims claim that they brought down communism in Afghanistan. That may be true, but there certainly is something to be said also for the efforts of the Catholic Church, which helped to undermine the communism in Poland and to break the Soviet grip on Eastern Europe. Popes know how to play power politics.
Thus, there are at least two ways to view Benedict`s speech politically.
One view derives from the fact that the pope is watching the U.S.-jihadist war. He can see it is going badly for the United States in both Afghanistan and Iraq. He witnessed the recent success of Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas` political victory among the Palestinians. Islamists may not have the fundamental strength to threaten the West at this point, but they are certainly on a roll. Also, it should be remembered that Benedict`s predecessor, John Paul II, was clearly not happy about the U.S. decision to invade Iraq, but it does not follow that his successor is eager to see a U.S. defeat there.
The statement that Benedict made certainly did not hurt U.S. President George W. Bush in American politics. Bush has been trying to portray the war against Islamist militants as a clash of civilizations, one that will last for generations and will determine the future of mankind. Benedict, whether he accepts Bush`s view or not, offered an intellectual foundation for Bush`s position. He drew a sharp distinction between Islam and Christianity and then tied Christianity to rationality -- a move to overcome the tension between religion and science in the West. But he did not include Islam in that matrix. Given that there is a war on and that the pope recognizes Bush is on the defensive, not only in the war but also in domestic American politics, Benedict very likely weighed the impact of his words on the scale of war and U.S. politics. What he said certainly could be read as words of comfort for Bush. We cannot read Benedict`s mind on this, of course, but he seemed to provide some backing for Bush`s position.
It is not entirely clear that Pope Benedict intended an intellectual intervention in the war. The church obviously did not support the invasion of Iraq, having criticized it at the time. On the other hand, it would not be in the church`s interests to see the United States simply routed. The Catholic Church has substantial membership throughout the region, and a wave of Islamist self-confidence could put those members and the church at risk. From the Vatican`s perspective, the ideal outcome of the war would be for the United States to succeed -- or at least not fail -- but for the church to remain free to criticize Washington`s policies and to serve as conciliator and peacemaker. Given the events of the past months, Benedict may have felt the need for a relatively gentle intervention -- in a way that warned the Muslim world that the church`s willingness to endure vilification as a Crusader has its limits, and that he is prepared, at least rhetorically, to strike back. Again, we cannot read his mind, but neither can we believe that he was oblivious to events in the region and that, in making his remarks, he was simply engaged in an academic exercise.
This perspective would explain the timing of the pope`s statement, but the general thrust of his remarks has more to do with Europe.
There is an intensifying tension in Europe over the powerful wave of Muslim immigration. Frictions are high on both sides. Europeans fear that the Muslim immigrants will overwhelm their native culture or form an unassimilated and destabilizing mass. Muslims feel unwelcome, and some extreme groups have threatened to work for the conversion of Europe. In general, the Vatican`s position has ranged from quiet to calls for tolerance. As a result, the Vatican was becoming increasingly estranged from the church body -- particularly working- and middle-class Catholics -- and its fears.
As has been established, the pope knew that his remarks at Regensburg would come under heavy criticism from Muslims. He also knew that this criticism would continue despite any gestures of contrition. Thus, with his remarks, he moved toward closer alignment with those who are uneasy about Europe`s Muslim community -- without adopting their own, more extreme, sentiments. That move increases his political strength among these groups and could cause them to rally around the church. At the same time, the pope has not locked himself into any particular position. And he has delivered his own warning to Europe`s Muslims about the limits of tolerance.
It is obvious that Benedict delivered a well-thought-out statement. It is also obvious that the Vatican had no illusions as to how the Muslim world would respond. The statement contained a verbal blast, crafted in a way that allowed Benedict to maintain plausible deniability. Indeed, the pope already has taken the exit, noting that these were not his thoughts but those of another scholar. The pope and his staff were certainly aware that this would make no difference in the grand scheme of things, save for giving Benedict the means for distancing himself from the statement when the inevitable backlash occurred. Indeed, the anger in the Muslim world remained intense, and there also have been emerging pockets of anger among Catholics over the Muslim world`s reaction to the pope, considering the history of Islamic attacks against Christianity. Because he reads the newspapers -- not to mention the fact that the Vatican maintains a highly capable intelligence service of its own -- Benedict also had to have known how the war was going, and that his statement likely would aid Bush politically, at least indirectly. Finally, he would be aware of the political dynamics in Europe and that the statement would strengthen his position with the church`s base there.
The question is how far Benedict is going to go with this. His predecessor took on the Soviet Union and then, after the collapse of communism, started sniping at the United States over its materialism and foreign policy. Benedict may have decided that the time has come to throw the weight of the church against radical Islamists. In fact, there is a logic here: If the Muslims reject Benedict`s statement, they have to acknowledge the rationalist aspects of Islam. The burden is on the Ummah to lift the religion out of the hands of radicals and extremist scholars by demonstrating that Muslims can adhere to reason.
From an intellectual and political standpoint, therefore, Benedict`s statement was an elegant move. He has strengthened his political base and perhaps legitimized a stronger response to anti-Catholic rhetoric in the Muslim world. And he has done it with superb misdirection. His options are open: He now can move away from the statement and let nature take its course, repudiate it and challenge Muslim leaders to do the same with regard to anti-Catholic statements or extend and expand the criticism of Islam that was implicit in the dialogue.
The pope has thrown a hand grenade and is now observing the response. We are assuming that he knew what he was doing; in fact, we find it impossible to imagine that he did not. He is too careful not to have known. Therefore, he must have anticipated the response and planned his partial retreat.
It will be interesting to see if he has a next move. The answer to that may be something he doesn`t know himself yet.
http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/read_article.php?id=275704
Still related to this topic, there is much in what ujjiz has pointed to: Not without reason did Pope Benedict/Retzinger meet privately with Fallacci ... Roadmaps to future directions come from meetings such as these ...
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008963
Benedict the Brave
The pope said things Muslims need to hear about faith and reason.
Tuesday, September 19, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT
It`s a familiar spectacle: furious demands for an apology, threats, riots, violence. Anything can trigger so-called Muslim fury: a novel by a British-Indian writer, newspaper cartoons in a small Nordic country or, this past week, a talk on theology by the head of the Roman Catholic Church.
In a lecture on ``Faith and Reason`` at the University of Regensburg in Germany, Benedict XVI cited one of the last emperors of Byzantium, Manuel II Paleologus. Stressing the 14th-century emperor`s ``startling brusqueness,`` the pope quoted him as saying: ``Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.``
Taken alone, these are strong words. However, the pope didn`t endorse the comment that he twice emphasized was not his own. No matter. As with Salman Rushdie`s ``Satanic Verses,`` which millions of outraged Muslims didn`t bother to read (including Ayatollah Khomeini, who put the bounty on the novelist`s life), what Benedict XVI meant or even said isn`t the issue. Once again, many Muslim leaders are inciting their faithful against perceived slights and trying to proscribe how free societies discuss one of the world`s major religions.
Several Iraqi terrorist groups called for attacks on the Vatican. A cleric linked to Somalia`s ruling Islamist movement urged Muslims to ``hunt down`` and kill the pope. In an apparently linked attack Sunday in Mogadishu, a nun was gunned down in a children`s hospital. Pakistan`s parliament unanimously adopted a resolution condemning the pontiff and demanding an apology.
Under pressure and no doubt to stop any further violence, the pope on Sunday did so. ``I am deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address . . . which were considered offensive to the sensibility of Muslims,`` he told pilgrims at his Castelgandolfo summer residence. The quote doesn`t ``in any way express my personal thought. I hope this serves to appease hearts.``
It was a gracious gesture on the pope`s part, especially because his original argument deserves to be heard, not least by Muslims. The offending quotation was a small part in a chain of argument that led to his main thesis about the close relationship between reason and belief. Without the right balance between the two, the pontiff said, mankind is condemned to the ``pathologies and life-threatening diseases associated with religion and reason``--in short, political and religious fanaticism.
In Christianity, God is inseparable from reason. ``In the beginning was the Word,`` the pope quotes from the Gospel according to John. ``God acts with logos. Logos means both reason and word,`` he explained. ``The inner rapprochement between Biblical faith and Greek philosophical inquiry was an event of decisive importance not only from the standpoint of history of religions, but also from that of world history. . . . This convergence, with the subsequent addition of the Roman heritage, created Europe.``
The question raised by the pope is whether this convergence has taken place in Islam as well. He quotes the Lebanese Catholic theologist Theodore Khoury, who said that ``for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent, his will is not bound up with any of our categories.`` If this is true, can there be dialogue at all between Islam and the West? For the pope, the precondition for any meaningful interfaith discussions is a religion tempered by reason: ``It is to this great logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures,`` he concluded.
This is not an invitation to the usual feel-good interfaith round-tables. It is a request for dialogue with one condition--that everyone at the table reject the irrationality of religiously motivated violence. The pope isn`t condemning Islam; he is inviting it to join rather than reject the modern world.
By their reaction to the pope`s speech, some Muslim leaders showed again that Islam has a problem with modernity that is going to have to be solved by a debate within Islam. The day Muslims condemn Islamic terror with the same vehemence they condemn those who criticize Islam, an attempt at dialogue--and at improving relations between the Western and Islamic worlds--can begin.
(Note: I have not read the interacts here.)
Yaar Patrick, you are being too hard on the Pope.
[The spiritual leader of a billion should know better!]
No, a spiritual leader is not the same as a diplomatic leader. And now that he is trying to act like one – by issuing half-hearted apologies, he is making a mess of it.
The Pope, like anybody else – can say what he believes in. As long as he is not asking Muslims to be ostracized or accorded some punishment because of their religion, there is no reason to beat up on him. If truth be told, he only said out aloud what many in his flock already think – indeed are convinced of.
If what he said is factually incorrect, that inaccuracy should be challenged. The Christians` own gory early history does not invalidate his statements. There is no reason why ANYBODY (including the Pope) should indulge in political correctness.
The author should stop defending the outrageous behavior of the Pope’s detractors by making all kinds of wishy-washy apologetic statements. Such statements do not change the facts.
The real reason the Muslims the world over live backward lives has NOTHING to do with the Pope. Right thinking Muslims are aware of that unpleasant reality.
And one does not have to be a Muslim to be able to make that simple statement loud and clear!
Folks, I have been asking Masadi for a long time, and he has yet to answer.
Once again, Masadi, do you use your reason or do you remain a believer? You have a choice: Reason or Belief? Can a believer use the faculty of reasoning?
Respectfully submitted,
Interesting info. Thanks. Remind me to not get carried away with speculative thought in future. :)
Pm
I must live in the conversion capital of UK, I think there needs to be a research done why this phenomena is taking place, may be they want structure or moral order in their lives. My observations are majority tend to be VICKIES, Vicky in UK is a single parent living in council house and on welfare, very few tend to be from upwardly mobile classes. The other thing I’ve noticed is they tend to be in their 20’s and 30’s. I think what has happened in majority of the cases is that these girls are from broken homes and the guys they were involved with did’t commit left them holding the baby, maybe that has turned them against western culture, these are my observations.
I am a born-again hypocrite.
There! Now do you feel better, and like debating the issue and not my character?
The catholic church, if anything, has seen islam as a fellow traveler, having similar political aims with respect to the role of religion in public life, abortion, etc., and the church has also been an opponent of the iraq war and has been sympathetic to the palestinians and lebanese...
Utter Hogwash!
;)
pmishra: Well said, indeed!
By the way, are you the P Mishra of some fame as an author?
TAhmed:
Religion is the problem!
Just like wives are. :-0
ranjit:
I am was not referring to the social misfits and ex-cons and almost-cons that, as you point out, constitute one group of converts.
In Europe, the pattern is different. Ordinary folks, even ``white`` ones (by which i think you mean the non-immigrant population) are converting in numbers never before seen. echoboom will provide refernces/links soon enough to corroborate this claim.
It is, however, interesting to examine some of the possible motivations for conversion. IMHO, many converts to Islam can be described as those seeking more structure and order (and yes, even less freedom) in their lives, which have been increasingly tumultous in the past generation with the gaining currency of, among other things, value relativity, multicultralist imperatives, and occupational insecurity. Many folks are of a psychological disposition that leaves them feeling rudderless and ungrounded. Islam (more than Christianity, which, after all, has only one rule -- to love!) is the natural choice for such folks seeking refuge from the rollar-coaster, pleasure-seeking, dog-eat-dog existence their lives have come to be.
As behram sahib would say, Respectfully submitted,
From some of the commentaries I have read, the pope also has taken a dig at protestantism (transcendant god = idolatry) at the same time. I don`t see the protestants going nuts over his remarks.
The catholic church, if anything, has seen islam as a fellow traveler, having similar political aims with respect to the role of religion in public life, abortion, etc., and the church has also been an opponent of the iraq war and has been sympathetic to the palestinians and lebanese...
The pope is not the enemy of islam, he certainly is an adversary. What do you expect from someone who subscribes to a different theology/ideology?
So, rather than barking up the wrong tree (religion) the pope should have been barking (excuse the expression) up the correct tree (jehaliyat). Just as islam-bashers and hinduism-bashers on chowk bark up the wrong tree.
Analyze what lies behind this ``jehaliyat`` - and a miserable picture emerges - family feuds, constant quarelling, is the hallmark of the jahil. And that ``fasaadi`` mentality of the jahil is the fertile ground that breeds criminal behavior that is flatteringly called ``terrorism``.
Agree with Saleem that well said. This is also the tune I have been playing all these years on chowk. It is religion that is the problem. It is the jahils and their witch doctors (aka priests, maulvis) and their human gods (aka khalifa, kings) who are the problem.
Mishra Sahib,
Beautiful!
I agree with your viewpoint.
Instead of playing this ``my mom`s better than your mom`` nonsense, we all need to grow up a bit and discuss/resolve issues impacting humanity TODAY. Suppression of minorities, emancipation of women, child labor, white slavery, human traficking, terrorism, poverty, hunger, land grabbing, exploitation of earth`s resources, pollution, and undemocratic structure of UN are some of the burning topics that cry out for resolution. Thanks.
I would have 1000% more respect for him if he said: why dont muslim societies today give decent rights to non-muslims? It is outrageous the christians (and others) cannot practice their faith in many middle-eastern countries, especially Saudi Arabia. It is sign of civilization to allow minorities to practice their traditions freely. And this should include countries like Greece, France etc. which have historically not allowed much expression outside christianity.
But wasting time on criticizing the big mo` or the good ole buddha or cool krishna? This is the basis of inter-religous understanding???
Having voiced my opinion regarding the stupidity exhibited by Ratzinger Benedict Wolfgang the Turd or the Umpteenth, I must now turn my disgust at the howling, screaming, uncontrolled, and hysterical mullahs. Just as the thousands of right-wing fundo whacko Sunni Wahabbi fanatic terrorists do not represent the overwhelming majority of Muslims, these obviously ignorant and self-defeating inverted beavers don`t speak for the millions of Muslims who expressed their disappointment with silent processions, witty placards, and rational arguments. Unfortunately, the TV cameras focused on this bizarre and counter-productive circus of Muslim wrath. Seeing these ugly images of violence, arson, uncontrolled passion, and irrational behavior, made me think that an embarrassed Holy Prophet (PBUH) would have probably agreed with the stupid Pope - many Muslims are indeed irrational when it comes to their ``faith.``
[...Also, while you may be right in stating that Western governments have become more wary of Islamia, the phenomena of an unprecedented conversion incidence to Islam there,....]
This is utter hogwash. The only people who are converting to Islam in US are convicts in prisons and other such disaffected riff-raff who want to latch on to Islam as a vehicle of protest. No middle class or upper class white american is converting. In fact they are becoming more conservative christians. In UK, there have been a few converts more as a fashion rather than anything else. Even there it is the social misfits who are converting.
As far as your other points are concerned, yes Islamia and Christendom are not monoliths and there are other dimensions to conflicts including colonial exploitation and so forth. My point is that Islamia and Christendom are rivals ever since Islam was created. The rivalry may be overt or covert but it exists and has manifested itself in various places at different times. Both sides have long memories (the pope is quoting from 14th century texts and the mullahs do the same) and both sides secretly wish the demise of the other but are politically correct not to articulate it directly. Hence all this inter-faith dialogue stuff is nonsense.
Fallaci had mentioned her great respect for Pope Benedict XVI and her admiration for his 2004 essay titled ``If Europe Hates Itself``.
In her own book, she wrote that Muslims ``multiply like rats`` and said ``the children of Allah spend their time with their bottoms in the air, praying five times a day.``
``The Strength of Reason,`` accused Europe of having sold its soul to what Fallaci described as an Islamic invasion. It also took the Catholic Church to task for being what she considers too weak before the Muslim world.
Describing Europe as ``Eurabia,`` Fallaci said the continent ``has sold itself and sells itself to the enemy like a prostitute.``
``Europe becomes more and more a province of Islam, a colony of Islam,`` she wrote.
The current invasion, Fallaci went on to say, is not carried out only by the ``terrorists who blow up themselves along with skyscrapers or buses`` but also by ``the immigrants who settle in our home, and who, with no respect for our laws, impose their ideas, their customs, their God.``
I am not familiar with Fallaci. But it doesn`t surprise me that her atheism should not be a reason for discord between Catholics. The Catholic church, whatever it`s other failings, has advanced leaps and bounds since Vatican Council II in the 60`s on the issue of dealing with non-Catholics-- even with athiests. Their current position is best summed up in the words of once-dissident Paul Tillich, ``it`s not about who believes and who doesn`t anymore; but about who cares and who doesn`t.``
Who knows, maybe at some point they`ll even admit to salvation for Protestants! :-)
Incidentally, something posted by echoboom on UP some days ago, re. Islam`s acceptance of atheists that are not deliberate troublemakers, was quite refreshing to know. Care to repeat, echo?
Dr sahib, we are all entitled to our perceptions, and even projections.
waisey, last time I checked, Zionism wasn`t listed under `forms of Islam`. Neither was U.S. neo-conservatism. :)
But seriously, yes wahaabi Sunniism is manifesting itself as a murderous inspiration, even nihilistically so, in Iraq. But how much of this has to do with being in a veritable state of anarchy/anomie I am really not sure.
You state: For centuries the two faiths have collided in different theater of operations - whether it is Spain in Cordoba, the Balkans, the Crusades, the destruction of Ottoman empire, the destruction of Mughal empire, colonial rule over middle-east, establishment of Israel etc.
Cordoba and the Crusades are probably the only vaild examples of Christendom fighting Islamia. All the others are incidental in that characterization. The destruction of the Ottomans? The Mughals? Well, the British were out to conquer pretty much anyone and everyone that came in their way of global dominance. The real enemy, now that the currency of war was economics, were their European rivals, among whom the spoils were fought over as recently as the last century.
The Balkans? Religion was only one element in the identity of the enemy. It did compound the hate, but they fact that the Serbs and Croats were willing to go at each others` throats too suggests that the regional, ethnic element (quashed under 150 years of forced co-existence) played at least an equal role as religion in the identity question.
Colonial rule over the mideast? Well, it also extends to Africa and S. America, insofar as these regions have natural resources to be exploited. The original colonists were every bit as ruthless dealing with the animists in those lands as they were with Muslims (actually much more so!). Latter day neo-colonisation doesn`t seem to differentiate by religion either. Ask any of the South American leaders gathering in Havana for confirmation.
The fact is -- and anyone following the statements from the Vatican pre-Benedict will aver this -- that the fall of communism actually served to bring the two communities (or at least Islamia and Catholicism) closer as the new enemy was perceived as `ugly unbridled capitalism` -- a pet peeve of John Paul II. Neither did things change post 9-11. The JP II, while denouncing violence on innocents by Muslim extremists, repeatedly called for an examination, and elimination, of `root causes,` cheif among which he held economic injustice.
Yes, 9-11 has put European and of course the U.S governments on high alert against Islamic terrorism. But even as the dust of the fallen towers settled, you had Americans (and Europeans even earlier) calling for inquiries into what are dismissively called conspiracy theories. A recent poll showed that no less than 50% of New Yorkers believed that the US govt either had a hand in or allowed 9-11 to happen. This is not exactly good news for the Clash touters, is it?
Also, while you may be right in stating that Western governments have become more wary of Islamia, the phenomena of an unprecedented conversion incidence to Islam there, as well as in an interest in understanding the religion, as inidcated by book sales, seems to suggest that the general population do not necessarily share the sentiments of their governments.
re. There is a revival of religion in the USA and it is going to get revived in Europe as well.
I didn`t know that religion was ever NOT a big deal in the US. What`s happened there post 9-11 is that the religious right as simply moved a little more to that extreme. Europe? Let`s wait and see. So far, the revival seems to take the shape of conversions.
more later....
a very simplistic view of history.
islam has never been one monolith, same is true with christianity, brits and french fought with ottomans against russia. for centuries europeans fought with one another, same is true with muslims.








reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content