| Author | Topic |
raushan
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
|
 Topic initiated on Tuesday, September 26, 2006 - 11:41 AM 
M u h a m m a d' s S w o r d
MANY TIMES IT HAS BEEN REPEATED THAT ISLAM IS SPREAD with THE help OF SWORD.
RECENTLY POPE REPEATED THE SAME CRY..WHAT MUSLIMS DID IN THE RESPONSE IS AS USUAL PROTESTING,SHOUTING,BURNING AND GETTING ANGRY ...
ARE THESE ISLAMIC WAYS TO RESPOND?
ITS REALLY A SHAME FOR MUSLIMS THAT THE REPLY TO POPE IN THE BEST LOGICAL LANGUAGE AND BEST MANNER HAS COME FROM A a Jewish atheist..
PLZ READ THE BELOW LINES AND LET US LEARN WHAT IS CALLED REPLY AND HOW TO MAKE REPLIES..
============================
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?
URI AVNERY
..............
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. The recent 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?
Edited by: raushan on Tuesday, September 26, 2006 11:44 AM |
|
Loveall
PAKISTAN
|
 Posted - Tuesday, September 26, 2006 - 4:42 PM 
|
student1
PAKISTAN
|
Posted - Tuesday, September 26, 2006 - 5:35 PM
Asalam Aalaikum,
Dear Brother,
Unfortunately this is one of the biggest problem in Muslim Ummah. If muslims were well mannered,organized and educated then these things wouldnot have been happening.
Muslims have lost tolerance and manners and donot try to control their emotions.
We are not able to produce rational minds due to intellectual and educational stagnation and neither our Alims nor Scholars properly guide our young generation.
May Allah guide us all. |
|
oosman
USA
|
Posted - Wednesday, September 27, 2006 - 8:49 PM
Dear raushan,
I stopped reading your post when I read 'Jewish atheist'.
There is no such thing as a Jewish atheist. Can you explain what you are trying to say? |
|
raushan
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
|
Posted - Thursday, September 28, 2006 - 6:06 AM
sorry,let me explain,
the article
M u h a m m a d' s S w o r d
is written by URI AVNERY is
taken from this webpage:
http://tinyurl.co.uk/ztsr
If you read the article you find the
author saying''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".
and
plz refer
student 1,one of the participiant has a post on this place
http://www.studying-islam.org/forum/topic.aspx?topicid=1621&lang=&forumid=34
it says"........Actually many people have
misunderstanding about jews. They think that a Jew is the one who adheres to Jewish beleives but this is not necessary. A jew can also be a person who belongs to a Jewish race or you can say that he or she is a descendant of Bani Isreal.
Just as a person can be a Pakistani Christian, or American Christian or Pakistani Hindu or Arab Jew.
In a similar way a person can be a Jewish muslim or Jewish Christian......"
hope it will be clear now. |
|
askhalifa
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
|
Posted - Saturday, September 30, 2006 - 9:04 AM
The points raised in this thread is based on certian assumption which are difficult to prove.
You assume that those who are speaking against Islam and Prophet Mohammed (including pope) are ignorant about Islam
You also assume that they are sincere in their comments.
Both are absolutely assumptions. When it comes to Islam they always have double standard and they deliberately ignore truth for their desire. They very well know the history of christianity, how illogical it is and how vatican used force against scientis and other sects of christianity. Their animosity is purely based on jealosy and nothing else. To give scinetific and logical answer is absolutely stupid act, because they don't understand logics when its about Islam.
002.109
YUSUFALI: Quite a number of the People of the Book wish they could Turn you (people) back to infidelity after ye have believed, from selfish envy, after the Truth hath become Manifest unto them: But forgive and overlook, Till Allah accomplish His purpose; for Allah Hath power over all things.
PICKTHAL: Many of the people of the Scripture long to make you disbelievers after your belief, through envy on their own account, after the truth hath become manifest unto them. Forgive and be indulgent (toward them) until Allah give command. Lo! Allah is Able to do all things.
SHAKIR: Many of the followers of the Book wish that they could turn you back into unbelievers after your faith, out of envy from themselves, (even) after the truth has become manifest to them; but pardon and forgive, so that Allah should bring about His command; surely Allah has power over all things.
Edited by: askhalifa on Saturday, September 30, 2006 9:06 AM |
|
raushan
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
|
Posted - Saturday, September 30, 2006 - 11:31 AM
dear brother,
plz advice on the below from your quote:
1.qoute:The points raised in this thread is based on certian assumption which are difficult to prove.
>>rep:plz tell us those points,and how these are made on certain assumptions.
2.quote:To give scinetific and logical answer is absolutely stupid act, because they don't understand logics when its about Islam.
>>reply:Ok ,if this is illogical.
then what should be done.plz suggest.
---------
The verse you quoted in this contex provides a solution that..
"".. forgive and overlook, Till Allah accomplish His purpose; .."
yes ,we must obey what Quran says if we are muslim.
Therefore we should forgive those people and overlook these events happening against islam and stop leading processions,burning effigies and disturbing public life.
-------
002.109
YUSUFALI: Quite a number of the People of the Book wish they could Turn you (people) back to infidelity after ye have believed, from selfish envy, after the Truth hath become Manifest unto them: But forgive and overlook, Till Allah accomplish His purpose; for Allah Hath power over all things.
the context of this verse is here:
the context of this verse as by Maulana maudoodi
and
as per tafseer by wahiduddin khan:
..Secondly, they tried to mislead Muslim converts about their new religion, putting doubts into their minds in the hope that they would revert to the religion of their forefathers. It was only natural that this should provoke the Muslims, but God told them that this was not the time for violent reaction. It would be better to bear with them for a while, until decisive steps could be taken against them. If trust were placed in God alone, He would make this possible. Muslims should always be patient, since patience prevents one from taking negative retaliatory measures in the heat of the moment. ..
(http://www.quran.net/)
wassalam |
|
askhalifa
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
|
Posted - Saturday, September 30, 2006 - 11:56 AM
quote:
>>reply:Ok ,if this is illogical.
then what should be done.plz suggest.
I really do not have a readymade solution. But to say that we should give a logical answer is definitely stupid solution. They already have a logical answer which they are not ready accept due to their jeolusy. Secondly, other solution proposed here is to slander muslim who prtotesting against pope, is it the right solution?
My objection here is that, why some of the members tries to give an impression that pope was logical and only muslims are emotional? Why do we try our best to search an excuse for pope and can't do same for our muslims brothers? Yes we should control our emotion and plan our protest properly, but if some muslims react improperly why do we call them ill-mannered?
Edited by: askhalifa on Saturday, September 30, 2006 11:58 AM |
|
raushan
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
|
Posted - Saturday, September 30, 2006 - 12:37 PM
If the followers of an interpolated, distorted religious scripture and an Idolator (yes, they worship idol of jesus and mary)does wrong ,it can be understood that they have no guidence or deliberately avoiding the right path.
But there must be a difference in the acts of muslims and idolators.
we muslims have the final revelation from Allah and follow the last prophet as our ideal.
how can we do something which is not ordered by Allah or doesnt have any example in prophet's life.
If we do the same what pope and their followers do,then what ll be the difference between them and us?
wassalam |
|
oosman
USA
|
Posted - Saturday, September 30, 2006 - 3:22 PM
Thank you for posting this article.
I don't think there is any religious basis for the way Muslims around the world react to ignorant peoples remarks about Islam, Muslims or the Prophet. We should definitely condemn these ignorant remarks, but what we see happening, especially in the third world Muslim countries is the civil disobedience, burning KFCs, burning down churches, killing nuns and intimidating Christians.
When the pope is saying Islam was spread by the sword, these ignorant Muslims around the world only prove his point, that we are a violent and intolerant. |
|
 Reply to Topic 
Printer Friendly |
| Jump To: |
|
|
|