|
28659. jexster - 10/31/2006 3:44:00 AM John L. Esposito - Georgetown University
Washington, D.C. - The primary purpose and message of Benedict XVI's address in Regensburg, Germany was not about Islam, referred to in only four paragraphs of his eight-page lecture. And yet, this papal address to a university audience turned into an occasion for an international protest across the Muslim world. Morocco withdrew its ambassador to the Vatican, heads of state from Turkey to Indonesia voiced criticism, the Sheikh of Al-Azhar commented on the Pope's ignorance of Islam, and leaders of Muslim organisations called for a public apology. The incident has also triggered public demonstrations, the burning of the Pope in effigy in Pakistan and acts of violence against both Christians and churches.
The Pope clearly stated that his primary purpose was to discuss the issue of "faith and reason". He did so reacting and responding to a major concern of his, the excesses of secularisation: the triumph of secularism and increased weakness of Christianity and the Roman Catholic Church in his homeland, Germany, and in Europe in general, and attempts to exclude religion from the realm of reason.
Although the Vatican stated that the Pope did not intend to offend, his remarks did in fact upset many Muslims. Particularly offensive to Muslims was his citation of a fourteenth century Byzantine emperor's remarks about the Prophet Muhammad: "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."
Now, Muhammad is revered in Islam as the final Prophet of God and the model of Muslim life. Moreover, the remark that he commanded the spread of Islam by the sword is simply inaccurate, for what the Qur'an and Muhammad did was recognise the right to defend Islam and the Muslim community by fighting those Meccans who threatened and attacked Muslims.
Equally problematic is the Pope's statement that the Qur'anic passage, "There is no compulsion in religion" (Qur'an 2:256) was revealed in the early years of Muhammad's prophethood in Mecca, a period "when Mohammed was still powerless and under [threat]" but was overtaken later when he ruled Medina by "instructions, developed later and recorded in the Koran [Qur'an], concerning holy war."
Both these statements are incorrect. Qur'an 2:256 is not an early Meccan verse but is itself from the later Medinan period and the Qur'an does not equate jihad with holy war. This interpretation of jihad developed years later after Muhammad's death when it came to be used by rulers (caliphs) to justify their wars of imperial expansion and rule in the name of Islam.
28660. jexster - 10/31/2006 3:51:38 AM Forced Conversion
The notion thatMuslims are commanded to spread their faith “by the sword” or that Islam in fact was largely spread “by the sword” does not hold up to scrutiny. Indeed, as a political entity Islam spread partly as a result of conquest,
but the greater part of its expansion came as a result of preaching and missionary activity. Islamic teaching did not prescribe that the conquered populations be forced or coerced into converting. Indeed, many of the first areas conquered by the Muslims remained predominantly non-Muslim for centuries. (INDIA!]
Had Muslims desired to convert all others by force, there would not be a single church or synagogue left anywhere in the Islamic world.The command There is no compulsion in religion means now what it meant then. The mere fact of a person being non-Muslim has never been a legitimate casus belli in Islamic law or belief.As with the rules of war, history shows that someMuslims have violated Islamic tenets concerning forced conversion and the treatment of other religious communities, but history also shows that these are by far the exception which proves the rule.
We emphatically agree that forcing others to believe—if such a thing be truly possible at all—is not pleasing to God and that God is not pleased by blood. Indeed, we believe, and Muslims have always believed, that Whoso slays a soul not to retaliate for a soul slain, nor for corruption done in the land, it shall be as if he had slain mankind altogether (al-Ma’idah 5:32).
Open Letter 38 Muslim Scholars to Pope Benedict XVI
Now either they're scholars or you're spewing right wing Jewish swill...
"King's Mission"?
What a crock28661. jexster - 10/31/2006 3:53:26 AM Worse than a crock, as I have said before, your slanders of Islam are an offense against the Cross of Christ 28662. jexster - 10/31/2006 4:46:05 AM Francis Arinze : Cardinal, Prefect of Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments; President of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue.
Christian-Muslim Relations in the 21st Century
28663. jexster - 10/31/2006 4:51:33 AM 4. Facing the Phenomenon of Religious Extremism and Promoting Religious Freedom
Muslims and Christians have no choice but to accept that we are in a world in which religious plurality is a fact. "There is no compulsion in religion" as the Qur'an asserts (Q 2,256). Religion is therefore to be proposed, not imposed. Religious unity or compliance arrived at as a result of force - physical, psychological, economic, social or otherwise - is not worthy of the human person. And it is not a fit offering to God. Religious fanatics absolutely need conversion. As for those who engage in violence in the name of religion, this is a major insult to God and to religion. "No one can consider himself faithful to the great and merciful God who in the name of the same God dares to kill his brother. Religion and peace go together: to wage war in the name of religion is a blatant contradiction", said Pope John Paul II to the World Conference on Religion and Peace (in L'Osservatore Romano English edition, 16 Nov 1994, n. 2, p. 2). Farseeing religious leaders and wise statesmen are needed to convince people that freedom of religion is one of the dearest of human rights and that no one should be prevented from exercising this right, provided that the just rights of other people are not violated.
28664. concerned - 10/31/2006 6:50:29 AM jexster's febrile insistence that there is no compulsion in religion wrt Islam is a lie on the face of it. That's about like saying there's no compulsion on cockroaches once they enter a 'roach motel'. IOW, bullshit. 28665. concerned - 10/31/2006 7:06:39 AM From 'Tolerance in Islam':
Of the verse "There is no compulsion in religion", the scholar Nahas said:
"the scholars differed concerning Q. 2:256. Some said: 'It has been abrogated [cancelled] for the Prophet compelled the Arabs to embrace Islam and fought them and did not accept any alternative but their surrender to Islam. The abrogating verse is Q. 9:73 'O Prophet, struggle with the unbelievers and hypocrites, and be thou harsh with them.' Mohammad asked Allah the permission to fight them and it was granted. Other scholars said Q. 2:256 has not been abrogated, but it had a special application. It was revealed concerning the people of the Book [the Jews and the Christians]; they can not be compelled to embrace Islam if they pay the Jizia (that is head tax on free non-Muslims under Muslim rule). It is only the idol worshippers who are compelled to embrace Islam and upon them Q. 9:73 applies. This is the opinion of Ibn 'Abbas which is the best opinion due to the authenticity of its chain of authority."[1]
In exempting the Jews and the Christians from Q. 2:256, the Muslim scholars agree that the idol worshippers can be compelled by force to embrace Islam.
It is clear that, whether Q. 2:256 was abrogated or not, the scholars quite naturally admit to the historical fact that "the Prophet compelled the Arabs to embrace Islam and fought them and did not accept any alternative but their surrender to Islam."
THE JUSTIFICATION FOR COMPULSION
The Muslim theologians had to justify this compulsion. Here is the reason given by a famous scholar:
"No compulsion" is a condemnation of compelling people to do evil generally, but compelling people in the truth is a religious duty. Does the infidel get killed for any thing except on the basis of his religion? The Prophet said: I have been ordered to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah. This Hadith is taken from the words of Allah 'Fight them on until there is no more tumult and religion becomes that of Allah (Q. 2:193).
If some one asks how can people be compelled in the truth when the mere fact of compelling indicates a the violation of the will of the one compelled? The first answer is that Allah sent Mohammad calling people to Him, showing the way to the truth, enduring much harm ... until the evidence of Allah's truth became manifest ... and His apostle became strong, He ordered him to call people by the sword ... hence there is no more an excuse after being warned. The second answer is that people first are taken and compelled, but when Islam becomes prevalent ... and they mix and make friends ... their faith strengthens and finally becomes sincere."[2]
According to the above :
1. Muslims believe that they have the right to compel people to accept Islam because it is the truth.
2. Muslims believe that Mohammad was given a divine command to fight against people, not in self defence or for economical or political reasons, but because people do not worship the one Mohammad worshipped.
3. The above scholar had no value for the human free will. To him, forcing Islam on people is justified if later on they will become Muslims. It is not an exaggeration then to say that the sword is Allah's final word.
Dr. M. Khan the translator of Sahih al-Bukhari into English, had this to say in the introduction to his translation:
"Allah revealed in Sura Bara'at (Repentance, IX) the order to discard (all) obligations (covenants, etc), and commanded the Muslims to fight against all the Pagans as well as against the people of the Scriptures (Jews and Christians) if they do not embrace Islam, till they pay the Jizia (a tax levied on the Jews and Christians) with willing submission and feel themselves subdued (as it is revealed in 9:29). So the Muslims were not permitted to abandon "the fighting" against them (Pagans, Jews and Christians) and to reconcile with them and to suspend hostilities against them for an unlimited period while they are strong and have the ability to fight against them. So at first "the fighting" was forbidden, then it was permitted, and after that it was made obligatory."[11]
Thus all verses in the Kor(a)n suggesting there is no compulsion in Islam are abrogated. Rather, the vacillating purported 'will of Allah' was nothing more than an expedient way for Muhammad (Pigs Be Upon Him) to impose his personal will on others by taking advantage of their credulity.
Jexster - you going to keep repeating abrogated flat earth Islamic religious texts (of which there are more than there are not) like some fucking brain damaged parrot?
28666. concerned - 10/31/2006 7:09:24 AM 28667. concerned - 10/31/2006 7:22:32 AM toys? 28668. concerned - 10/31/2006 8:17:55 AM When Muhammad wrote 'there is no religious compulsion', and then he created a religious compulsion in a big way, that made him a fucking liar. 28669. jexster - 10/31/2006 10:22:15 AM You tell em TD! 28670. jexster - 10/31/2006 10:26:25 AM 28665 -
That would be by the noted scholars
Copyright © 1996 by M. Rafiqul-Haqq and P. Newton. All rights reserved.
Tolerance in Islam
by M. Rafiqul-Haqq and P. Newton
P Newton's copyrighted web page!
Linked via Matt Drudge?
Jewish sewer swill
Thanks be to Allah for The Google of the Internets 28671. jexster - 10/31/2006 10:29:59 AM 28665 -
OR
noted scholar
TOLERANCE IN ISLAM
An Abridged Version of the 1927 Lecture
by
Muhammad Marmaduke Pickthall
(Introduction Copyright © 1997 by Dr. A. Zahoor; Abridged Version Copyright © 1990 by Dr. Z. Haq)
All Rights Reserved. 28672. jexster - 10/31/2006 10:31:51 AM That last is in E-Book form....I guess they'll have to fight the copyright battle themselves...
As for the rest of you the latter is in EBOOK form!
But you'll have to do the google of the internets yourselves 28673. jexster - 10/31/2006 10:36:30 AM Doubt it is Jew sewer swill fed to the Fundamentalists???
Fed by Jude Suss himself
See for yourselves at DanielPipes.org
 28674. jexster - 10/31/2006 10:41:07 AM 655,000 Iraqis and 103 US troops this month have been slaughtered and Lebanon laid waste on account of such cranks 28675. alistairconnor - 10/31/2006 10:42:52 AM Con : Message # 28643 :
You didn't find any, in fact, that exhort the believer to lie to, cheat, defraud and murder those of other faiths.
Be so good as to note the present tense, please. That means now, not 1500 years ago. Not 3000 years ago. Now.
OK, it seems you have fallen into the Dualist heresy, espoused by Marcion in the second century, which consists of rejecting the relevance of the Old Testament. Yahweh was just a little tribal god of the Jews, with no relevance.
Sorry, I misunderstood. I thought we were talking about mainstream Christianity.
I take it, then, that you also reject the Ten Commandments? Just a list of housekeeping rules for a bunch of piddling little desert tribesmen. 28676. jexster - 10/31/2006 10:43:27 AM By their deeds you shall know them... 28677. alistairconnor - 10/31/2006 10:46:39 AM I have to concede that you have definitely found examples where the Hebrews have mistreated others in such ways in the past. My apologies if you misunderstood what I was asking. [...]
That means now, not 1500 years ago. Not 3000 years ago. Now.
So, when Mahomet (1200 years ago) exhorts the people of Medina to have no mercy on the pagans of Mecca who attack them, you concede that this has no relevance to modern Moslems, as Jexster claims? 28678. jexster - 10/31/2006 10:47:25 AM God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them. [Holy BushWrit 2:204]
|
