This was no insult to Islam



The Pope’s widely condemned remarks on Islam are actually enlightened, says andrew brown

Here we go again: angry Muslims are demanding that a Western intellectual apologise for daring to suggest that Islam spreads itself by force.

This time, though, the intellectual is the Pope. In a talk to the faculty of the University of Regensburg – the sort of audience he finds most congenial – Pope Benedict XVI quoted a Byzantine Emperor as condemning Mohammed "with startling brusqueness". Though, the Pope said, the Emperor Michael Paleologos II must have known the Koranic injunction that there should be no compulsion in matters of religion, the Emperor also told a Muslim general, "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 in context, or at any other time, these remarks would be universally hailed as



Calling this ‘an insult to Islam’ or to the Prophet is an exercise in bullying and stupidity

enlightened. The Pope is claiming that forcible conversion is contrary to God's nature. He goes on to quote more of the Emperor's dialogue: "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..."

Calling this "an insult to Islam" or to the Prophet is simply an exercise in bullying and stupidity. The most surreal sight of all is that of Turkish Muslim officials demanding that Pope Benedict apologise for suggesting that Islam is spread by the sword. For why are Turkey's highest religious officials Muslims? Because, roughly 50 years after the Emperor, besieged in Constantinople, set down his account of these theological discussions, Constantinople fell and became Istanbul.

FIRST POSTED SEPTEMBER 15, 2006

Today's news headlines

Benedict the subtle politician

Been gone for a while Lawdog!

Anyway... Islam, Christianity, Judaism... many religions were spread by force... poeple should just get over the facts of history and move on. Why should the things other people did in the past insult you? These Islamists are idiots in my mind... no matter how peaceful anyone says their religion is, its all up to the followers, and some people can be pretty violent by nature. Most religions have committed some types of vioence to get followers. I dont think all have... meaning all those new churches like the Church of Spaghetti Monsterism.

The Pope is right and the Moslems can go choke on if it they don't like it.

The Pope is right and the Moslems can go choke on if it they don't like it.


Muslims are not going anywhere and pope is wrong, we all know that, he quoted some strange and weird emperor who had a converstion with some unknow person etc etc... just like when St.Paul and St.John had those weird and strange dreams about bible... remember? back in the days when they were creating a religion?

Does this make Christianity the pot or the kettle?

Been gone for a while Lawdog!

Anyway... Islam, Christianity, Judaism... many religions were spread by force... poeple should just get over the facts of history and move .

It's too bad many can't just move on. Instead they get too wrapped up in all the dogma and harshness and cruelties that exist in all 3 of the abrahamic faiths.

Anyways, it's almost laughable the way many muslims ,christians and jews are always at each others throat,considering they all essentially follow the same ignorant vision of God...a vision created by men that is...not God itself.

Markx:

Actually, the quote was apparently from a well known dialogue betwixt the emperor of Byzantium and a Persian scholar. It was not a case of the "imaginary heebee jeebees". Similarly, even if it was, the fictionalized account spoke enough truth about Islam.

It might be said there is but one god and Allah is his name, but Jesus said God is One and Hallowed be his Name. There is a profound difference in which direction the human mind takes these thoughts. Especially the human minds who have been taught not to reason but to follow. Human mind??? Are there other minds?

No matter what he said or how he meant it, does that mean that Muslims should go on the warpath over it? Can't anyone state their opinion without someone getting upset about it? ...or go on a terrorist rampage over a few lousy words?

And probably just as bad ...here we are making a big deal about it on sciforums. It's one person's words about his opinion of things in the world. What the fuck is wrong with humans who will let a few words get them upset and angry and willing to kill other people over them? Wow! Things are really, really fucked up, aren't they?

What the fuck is this world coming to, anyway? Geez!

Baron Max

..........a few lousy words? ...............a few words get them upset?????????? It might be valuable to recognize the importance of the "word". I'm not a religious nut, but the whole message of Jesus seemed to be about the "word/gnosis" and how that is the one and only connection we have to this quantum state that some call god. It is important and our belief structures are especially powerful. Those who try to control our belief structures are the ones to watch out for. That includes many, the Pope, the Imans, and of course, people like Bush and Castro, haha.

Was the Pope's criticism of Islam unfair? No.

Was it a blatant and disgusting case of hypocrisy? Yes.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

It might be valuable to recognize the importance of the "word".
It is important and our belief structures are especially powerful.

So you approve of people getting angry at what others say? You understand vast numbers of peope protesting in the streets, burning the speaker(s) in effigy, vowing to take vengence .....all because of a few words? ....an opinion?

Then surely you'll approve of, say, a preemptive strike by Israel against Iran for Iranian remarks about the holocaust? ...and perhaps the US joining that effort with Israel because of Iranian remarks about the US?

Interesting? Do you do as you say, or do you just say things without thinking much about what they mean?

Baron Max

Baron, to whom be ye speaking? If it was my comment which you posted with your reply, then I have to admit that I struggle to find any relevance. Approval of anger?? How can you say that I'd "surely approve" anyone else's actions? Who says things without thinking? Maybe you used my post in error.

The Pope is an idiot, who has probably never read the f*cking bible! :bugeye:

Proving that the Pope has never read the Bible (http://godisimaginary.com/video5.htm)

Shh Godless, you aren't supposed to mention God's dark side... He is a pleasant character, honest...

Now please, can we get back to talking about angry muslims and end-times?

This was no insult to Islam
It would be if you were a muslim.

the truth hurts.
nothing more need be said.

Been gone for a while Lawdog!

Anyway... Islam, Christianity, Judaism... many religions were spread by force... poeple should just get over the facts of history and move on. Why should the things other people did in the past insult you? These Islamists are idiots in my mind... no matter how peaceful anyone says their religion is, its all up to the followers, and some people can be pretty violent by nature. Most religions have committed some types of vioence to get followers. I dont think all have... meaning all those new churches like the Church of Spaghetti Monsterism.


As has been pointed out the Pope was quoting rather than expressing a view per se but bearing in mind the history of the Roman Catholic Church, I am sure many would refer to 'glasshouses' and 'stones'.

We do need to inject some facts however into the discussion. Judaism has never been spread by force. In fact Jews were not generally keen to proselytise Gentiles into their faith (and still are not). Jews tend to believe that Judaism belongs to Jews, so this accusation against them is somewhat false.

In terms of the practice of other major religions, both Christianity and Islam have a poor record in this respect although it has to be said that much of the 'christian' bit was to do with political power of the papacy rather than religious zeal per se (not that that excuses it in anyway) and of course you have the Catholic/Protestant problems in post Henry VIII England and other places in Europe after the reformation.

Organised Christianity has however not been involved in such activities now for a very long time so it is an historical evil rather than a present one.

Islam has however practised religious intolerance, forcible conversions and persecution/murder of those not conforming continuallly from Mohammed to the present time (particularly bad areas at present would include Saudi Arabia, Iran, Somalia and Yemen) see http://www.opendoorsuk.org.uk/wwl.php

If we look at what was actually taught by the founders, it is quite clear that Jesus did not intend that people be forced into belief and was against any violent action against people on the basis of religion. No one has ever accused Jesus (or his apostles) of going on a 'holy war' and killing non-believers.

In respect of Mohammed, the message seems very mixed however with some passages suggesting that people should be free to choose their religion (always quoted by the moderates) but with many other passages making it quite clear that forcible conversion on pain of death is quite acceptable and that that is a valid path to the ultimate objective, which is a 100% Islamic world. This may reflect Mohammed's different attitudes to Jews and Christians at different times. Whatever was written, we do know however, as historical fact what Mohammed and his followers actually did and that was to practice forcible conversion on pain of death and to commit mass murder of non muslims. As many people tend to follow practical example rather than what people say, it can be no surprise if large numbers of muslims consider to this day that this is acceptable, since it is precisely what their founder did.

Fortunately of course most muslims in the west do not do this but simply get on with their lives very peacefully. Life in a 'truly' muslim states is though very very different.

Turkey is in a very difficult position. It is desperately trying to reinforce a view that it really is a secular state with freedom of religion and is trying to make its (poor) human rights record look better in order that it can gain EU membership (and thus of course money and trade benefits) but at the same time there are those within it who would wish it to shed Kemel Attaturk's secular constitution and become a 'true' Islamic state. If the latter happened with consequent reduction in human rights, it would of course no longer be eligible for EU membership (this is not to mention the disastrous practical effects on its economy and citizens). One to watch!

In a way Turkey illustrates the problem Islam has in general and which it cannot resolve. Are those living peacefully in the west and (genuinely) espousing Islam as a religion of peace that should co-exist with the modern world (and other religions) correct or is genuine Islam the forms practised in many Islamic states which is essentially totalitarian, barbarous and totally out of step with modern times?




regards,



Gordon.

the truth hurts.
nothing more need be said.
If it hurts, it's not truth.

i'd say of all the abrahamic faiths, islam has a track record of being the most tolerant. true, the jews aren't historically violent towards other sects, but that's only because they're too busy being persecuted or exterminated by them. as for the catholic church though, where exactly do they think they get off calling another religion out for being violent. apparently the pope doesn't have access to any history books.

apparently the pope doesn't have access to any history books.

Or his own book, as Godless pointed out.

I think this has been blown way out of proportion.

He's a theologian, he quoted a comment which in the context of his speech and present climate, could have been better selected.

It has been given far too much importance.

Enough said already.

I think this has been blown way out of proportion.

He's a theologian, he quoted a comment which in the context of his speech and present climate, could have been better selected.

It has been given far too much importance.

Enough said already.

i don't agree with that. you would be right that it isn't important if it hadn't caused the reaction from the muslim world that it has. you now have some whacked out muslims bombing churches in arab countries in order to show their outrage at the pope's comments (and apparently also attempting to prove the accuracy of his statement). i guess the comments in and of themselves are relatively unimportant, but it serves as a reminder of how tension between religious groups are currently turning the world upside down. in the end the implications of the pope's tactlessness are larger than just a squabble over impropriety.

i don't agree with that. you would be right that it isn't important if it hadn't caused the reaction from the muslim world that it has. you now have some whacked out muslims bombing churches in arab countries in order to show their outrage at the pope's comments (and apparently also attempting to prove the accuracy of his statement). i guess the comments in and of themselves are relatively unimportant, but it serves as a reminder of how tension between religious groups are currently turning the world upside down. in the end the implications of the pope's tactlessness are larger than just a squabble over impropriety.

Only because they have been used as such.

In and of itself, the words of a long ago Byzantine emperor should not be of such concern to Muslims.

Only because they have been used as such.

In and of itself, the words of a long ago Byzantine emperor should not be of such concern to Muslims.

yeah but that's the point. all words are meaningless if no one hears them or is influenced by them or acts on them. the impact and importance of a statement can be measured by action taken as a result of it, and in this case, that makes the pope's statement important, regardless of any hair-splitting you may want to get into.

you can say that you don't think that muslims should be concerned with the pope's choice of backup material for his characterization of islam, but they clearly are outraged by it. at that point, you would think that whether or not people should be concerned is irrelevant.

that whole incident to me just underscores the role that all three abrahamic faiths are currently playing in creating and exacerbating violent situations around the globe. the pope should get his head out of his ass and learn how to not be one of the most offensive people on earth, and muslims should probably realize that blowing up churches in the name of islam doesn't do too much to refute the assertion that your religion is inherently violent.

that whole incident to me just underscores the role that all three abrahamic faiths are currently playing in creating and exacerbating violent situations around the globe. the pope should get his head out of his ass and learn how to not be one of the most offensive people on earth, and muslims should probably realize that blowing up churches in the name of islam doesn't do too much to refute the assertion that your religion is inherently violent.

Its less about religion, more about regional politics.

But I agree with you.

I've said it before, any group is judged by its most visible element and the most visible element in Islam right now are the extremists.

It is up to us Muslims to change that, no one else can do it.

It is up to us Muslims to change that, no one else can do it.

But in the meantime, are we to just let the extremists kill whoever they want, whenever they want ...without condemnation and police action against them? Shrug it all off, and say, "Ho, hum, ....let the Muslims handle it." ?

Baron Max

But in the meantime, are we to just let the extremists kill whoever they want, whenever they want ...without condemnation and police action against them? Shrug it all off, and say, "Ho, hum, ....let the Muslims handle it." ?

Baron Max

Hmm so better to let the US extremists deal with Muslims and Muslim extremists to deal with Americans.

In fact, lets start keeping a tally, so we can either decide when both sides have had enough or no one is left to tally.

I don't know the answers, Sam, but I know that we, the western world, just can't stand by and let the terrorist do whatever they want to whoever they want. Does that seem right to you? Don't you think we, the western world, should do something? How can we just stand by and let innocent people be killed for nothing?

Baron Max

I don't know the answers, Sam, but I know that we, the western world, just can't stand by and let the terrorist do whatever they want to whoever they want. Does that seem right to you? Don't you think we, the western world, should do something? How can we just stand by and let innocent people be killed for nothing?

Baron Max

I don't know the answers, Baron, but I know that we, the rest of the world, just can't stand by and let the US do whatever they want to whoever they want. Does that seem right to you? Don't you think we, the rest of the world, should do something? How can we just stand by and let innocent people be killed for nothing?

Then do something, Sam!!! I'd much rather you fuckin' Muslim terrorist start attacking Americans and American soldiers than to just keep blowing up innocent women and children, most of the Muslims, to boot!! Do something, goddammit ....but quit blowing up innocent people ...women and children, even Muslims!!!! Do something ...quit fuckin' talkin' about it and do something!

Baron Max

Then do something, Sam!!! I'd much rather you fuckin' Muslim terrorist start attacking Americans and American soldiers than to just keep blowing up innocent women and children, most of the Muslims, to boot!! Do something, goddammit ....but quit blowing up innocent people ...women and children, even Muslims!!!! Do something ...quit fuckin' talkin' about it and do something!

Baron Max

What are the Americans doing?

Besides sending their families to fight an illegal war?

....but quit blowing up innocent people ...
Good advice. I wish the US military would listen.

I don't know the answers, Sam, but I know that we, the western world, just can't stand by and let the terrorist do whatever they want to whoever they want. Does that seem right to you? Don't you think we, the western world, should do something? How can we just stand by and let innocent people be killed for nothing?

Baron Max

How about if the U.S pushed for a real Palestinian homeland. I mean a real push---push and push till something gives. Not just another round of useless peace talks that usually fizzle out and then back to the usual cycle of violence. Of course Isreal would have to be willing.
Then really help the people try and establish a viable economy.
I know this sounds simplistic but such an effort would probably do a world of good with putting the west in abetter light in the eyes of even the extremists.

Unfortunately Bush and his ultra right wing christian fundamentalists are eager to keep the conflcit going with the Islamic world and intensify it..because of course its all biblical prophecy.
I am not supporting the Islamic extremists ..they are idiots as well, but I don't see how maintaining this war on terror is going to solve anything...if anything it's only going to get worse.

How about if the U.S pushed for a real Palestinian homeland. I mean a real push---push and push till something gives. Not just another round of useless peace talks that usually fizzle out and then back to the usual cycle of violence. Of course Isreal would have to be willing.
Then really help the people try and establish a viable economy.
I know this sounds simplistic but such an effort would probably do a world of good with putting the west in abetter light in the eyes of even the extremists.

Unfortunately Bush and his ultra right wing christian fundamentalists are eager to keep the conflcit going with the Islamic world and intensify it..because of course its all biblical prophecy.
I am not supporting the Islamic extremists ..they are idiots as well, but I don't see how maintaining this war on terror is going to solve anything...if anything it's only going to get worse.


We need to urgently focus on

1. alternate fuels
2. resolving the Palestine issue
3. removing the financial support structure of the terrorists.

I believe the first will make both the second and third easier.

Considering the fact that Muslims are paticularly sensitive at this juncture, what with the Mohamed cartoons and the war against terrorism (Islam) then what the Pope said was ill timed and very stupid.

"illegal war"

LOL.

pardon. the term just seems so freakin stupid. isn't that a bit redundant?

anyway..

I think perhaps in order to incite a cleansing and clearly identify the dangerous fucks to would take these kind of words and kill people because they were said - we should come up with daily statements of similar ilk to be broadcast worldwide. Flush them out I say. Identify them and schedule them for reprogramming.

Considering the fact that Muslims are paticularly sensitive at this juncture, what with the Mohamed cartoons and the war against terrorism (Islam) then what the Pope said was ill timed and very stupid.

Surely you don't think that's an excuse for violence and murder eh?

I think most "thinking muslims" would agree with sam that this is no big deal.

How about if the U.S pushed for a real Palestinian homeland. I mean a real push---push and push till something gives. Not just another round of useless peace talks that usually fizzle out and then back to the usual cycle of violence. Of course Isreal would have to be willing.
Then really help the people try and establish a viable economy.
I know this sounds simplistic but such an effort would probably do a world of good with putting the west in abetter light in the eyes of even the extremists.

I've always thought they should just move into israel, or syria or iraq or iran or something. I don't get it. You can't be palestinian in iran? Why don't they just invite them in? Again, I don't understand this aspect of the scenario...

What are the Americans doing?

Besides sending their families to fight an illegal war?

You don't seem to understand. Americans do what they have to do. You can call the war illegal, so can the international community, and so can many American's, but that's not the point. Are there or aren't there laws of war?

A holywar has the potential to become a lawless war, and I fear that not just because of the innocent civilians and torturing of soldiers, but also because of the fact that there are important religious buildings which could be destroyed if there are no mutual agreements ot a set of laws.

The most scary situation for me would be if the US Nukes the middle east, and Iran Nukes Isreal, and everyone nukes all the religious sites. It's the religious sites, the religious element, which makes the situation explosive.

You don't seem to understand. Americans do what they have to do. You can call the war illegal, so can the international community, and so can many American's, but that's not the point. Are there or aren't there laws of war?

A holywar has the potential to become a lawless war, and I fear that not just because of the innocent civilians and torturing of soldiers, but also because of the fact that there are important religious buildings which could be destroyed if there are no mutual agreements ot a set of laws.

The most scary situation for me would be if the US Nukes the middle east, and Iran Nukes Isreal, and everyone nukes all the religious sites. It's the religious sites, the religious element, which makes the situation explosive.


Setting aside monuments (which can be rebuilt), is it not more imperative to focus on real live people?

Unless the US stays out of the ME politics, the terrorism problem will never be resolved. Just the presence of the US army in Iraq is enough for the whole country to become a training ground for terrorism.

The first thing everyone must understand, in a war there are always innocent civilians. Innocent civilians, these are people who may indirectly support the war, because they have to, because their country decides for them.

Individual American's do not decide when to go to war, how to go to war, where to go to war, or anything of that sort. Individual American's get told "we are going to war", and then get asked "which side are you on, Americas side, or the terrorists?". Every American therefore is on America's side because we live here, our families are here, and really we don't have a better option.

This does not mean we agree with how the war is being fought, or if the war is legal or not, or on anything, but when in a situation where there are terrorists, we are united in capturing or taking out the terrorists because the terrorists actually did attack America on 911.

Of course, the situation is much more complicated than that, as there was hurricane Katrina, and Americans can just as easily ask "Where was the international community? Why didn't you help us?". So the same arguement that can be asked to American's about helping innocent muslims, can be asked to the international community.

The truth is, there are many good people in the world who want to help innocent people, innocent civilians, etc. These people however, aren't well organized, and don't have any power (or at least I don't know of any power). The way the world currently works is might makes right, he or that which has the most powerful weapons, makes all the rules, owns all the land, and rules the planet. This setup is not going to change anytime soon.

Innocent civilians, who care about the future, can have diplomacy, and economic organization, but none of this matters when all the weapons are in the hands of extremists. The terrorists have guns and weapons, it's just like that, and they'll use them on anyone, themselves, innocent civilians, the enemy, anyone.

Many of us disagree with having a war without rules and many of us support the geneva convention, but this does not really matter much because the people with the guns and bombs decide ultimately.

Setting aside monuments (which can be rebuilt), is it not more imperative to focus on real live people?

Unless the US stays out of the ME politics, the terrorism problem will never be resolved. Just the presence of the US army in Iraq is enough for the whole country to become a training ground for terrorism.

You have no idea how important these monuments are to religious people. Do you have any idea how many souls, how much energy, how much history and how many people died building and died protecting these monuments?

These monuments took billions of lives to build, and protect over the years. This is religion we are talking about here, and you have to understand that the perpective of a religious believer is that the monument matters more than the people because of the energy and souls that were put into building them.

Even in the west, I think Christians would go insane if the birth place of Christ were destroyed. I think Europeans would go insane if Roman monuments were destroyed, I think the same would happen to Muslims, or Asians, or Africans, or South Americans. All groups of people, all spiritual people, have monuments which are of great importance. The monuments are more important than individuals because monuments last longer than individuals, people only live 100 years, some of these monuments and religions have been around for thousands of years. I'm talking about before Christ, and some of them around the time of Christ, and some of them after Christ. These monuments may even be more important than the human race itself.

Why would someone believe this? Because after humans go extinct the only trace and evidence left of our existance will be these monuments. I think that yes, these monuments should be preserved no matter what.

I think terrorism can be resolved, it all depends on how you fight the war. I don't really know if we have a definition of a terrorist. First in order to properly fight terrorism we have to define what it is. We cannot just say the word "terror" and point to a brown man with a beard who looks Arab, if it's that simple we can just find or kill Bin Laden and it will be over, but it's obviously not that simple. A terrorist is not an appearance, it's not a religion although it might require religion, a terrorist is ultimately a personality type, and a political ideology. American's are unable to admit what a terrorist is, we cannot even admit that for example, those two kids involved in columbine were terrorists. If we cannot agree on what a terrorist is, how exactly are we supposed to win the war?

Second we have to define victory, what is winning the war? How many people must be killed in order to achieve victory? Or will it truly be an endless war from which we will kill terrorists from now until the end of time?

The reason this war is difficult to win is because we have not really explained the war. It's still a war that most people don't understand, except for the people fighting it, they seem to understand.

So as a thought experiment, can anyone here define what a terrorist is, and then once we do this can anyone here define what victory is and what it looks like? Finally how far away are we from victory and do our actions bring us closer or further from victory?

As of this moment, I think the war on terror and the war on terrorism are two different things. The war on terror, this is the esoteric understanding of the war, the war on terrorism is exoteric, and in reality do we really know what victory is when the war is undefineable? Is the war on Al Qaeda? If it were, well now Saddam and Iraq are involved so it must not be just Al Qaeda, is the war on Iran too? The whole middle east? Islam? I don't know.

I welcome anyone to define it, in specific, I'd like an extreme conservative to define it because conservative American's seem to understand the war better than anyone else. I also welcome any muslim extremist here to define it.

Moderates like myself, we don't really define it because we aren't passionate about it in the same way. I can see the economic reasoning behind some of the actions. I can see the rational behind disarming Iran if it has nuclear weapons. If the war is rational I can understand it, but on both sides, rarely is there rational debate on the extreme ends of the spectrum, and without rational debate you cannot win the middle.

What I do find considerable amusement in is the fact that every time Islam is accused of being violent, half appear to go on a rampage and set things on fire. Now I know that it is only the minority who do this, but it presents a very interesting picture to the world indeed.

And then Al Qaeda goes on one of its rants saying that they will crush the west, force all its inhabitants to either convert or pay a head tax as they did in the calliphate days, and impose sharia law. That really helps... especially considering that Al Quaeda has basically made itself Islam's official spokesman these days. *sigh* (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/09/18/pope.islam.ap/index.html)

What I do find considerable amusement in is the fact that every time Islam is accused of being violent, half appear to go on a rampage and set things on fire. Now I know that it is only the minority who do this, but it presents a very interesting picture to the world indeed.

Every religion has violent extreme elements. Violence has nothing to do with religion or Islam or Christianity, it's the human element that causes violence.

The first thing everyone must understand, in a war there are always innocent civilians. Innocent civilians, these are people who may indirectly support the war, because they have to, because their country decides for them.

Individual American's do not decide when to go to war, how to go to war, where to go to war, or anything of that sort. Individual American's get told "we are going to war", and then get asked "which side are you on, Americas side, or the terrorists?". Every American therefore is on America's side because we live here, our families are here, and really we don't have a better option.

This does not mean we agree with how the war is being fought, or if the war is legal or not, or on anything, but when in a situation where there are terrorists, we are united in capturing or taking out the terrorists because the terrorists actually did attack America on 911.

Of course, the situation is much more complicated than that, as there was hurricane Katrina, and Americans can just as easily ask "Where was the international community? Why didn't you help us?". So the same arguement that can be asked to American's about helping innocent muslims, can be asked to the international community.

The truth is, there are many good people in the world who want to help innocent people, innocent civilians, etc. These people however, aren't well organized, and don't have any power (or at least I don't know of any power). The way the world currently works is might makes right, he or that which has the most powerful weapons, makes all the rules, owns all the land, and rules the planet. This setup is not going to change anytime soon.

Innocent civilians, who care about the future, can have diplomacy, and economic organization, but none of this matters when all the weapons are in the hands of extremists. The terrorists have guns and weapons, it's just like that, and they'll use them on anyone, themselves, innocent civilians, the enemy, anyone.

Many of us disagree with having a war without rules and many of us support the geneva convention, but this does not really matter much because the people with the guns and bombs decide ultimately.

How many 9/11 terrorists were from Iraq?

Every religion has violent extreme elements. Violence has nothing to do with religion or Islam or Christianity, it's the human element that causes violence.
Thats the thing... Islam and Christianity are the human elements. This whole conflict has practically nothing to do with anything written in sterile ink and paper. Thousand year old words can be bent any which way to rationalize whatever the hell you choose to do. This conflict is more about living culture.

That isn't to say that Islamic culture is bad, its just struck through with cancerous elements. A running theme throughout history is that moderates are rarely in command of anything except by virtue of social inertia whenever any number of radicals are present. Moderates want only to live their lives and raise their families. Radicals are the ones that form armies and risk their lives for one cause or another. That tends to give them a certain amount of dominance.

One problem I see is that there is very little done against these elements by their own people. Terrorists cloak themselves in the image and word of Islam and by doing so make themselves effectively a sacred cow. To speak or act against them is seen in many places as un-Islamic and thus you would be siding with evil.

You have no idea how important these monuments are to religious people. Do you have any idea how many souls, how much energy, how much history and how many people died building and died protecting these monuments?

These monuments took billions of lives to build, and protect over the years. This is religion we are talking about here, and you have to understand that the perpective of a religious believer is that the monument matters more than the people because of the energy and souls that were put into building them.

Even in the west, I think Christians would go insane if the birth place of Christ were destroyed. I think Europeans would go insane if Roman monuments were destroyed, I think the same would happen to Muslims, or Asians, or Africans, or South Americans. All groups of people, all spiritual people, have monuments which are of great importance. The monuments are more important than individuals because monuments last longer than individuals, people only live 100 years, some of these monuments and religions have been around for thousands of years. I'm talking about before Christ, and some of them around the time of Christ, and some of them after Christ. These monuments may even be more important than the human race itself.

Why would someone believe this? Because after humans go extinct the only trace and evidence left of our existance will be these monuments. I think that yes, these monuments should be preserved no matter what.

I think terrorism can be resolved, it all depends on how you fight the war. I don't really know if we have a definition of a terrorist. First in order to properly fight terrorism we have to define what it is. We cannot just say the word "terror" and point to a brown man with a beard who looks Arab, if it's that simple we can just find or kill Bin Laden and it will be over, but it's obviously not that simple. A terrorist is not an appearance, it's not a religion although it might require religion, a terrorist is ultimately a personality type, and a political ideology. American's are unable to admit what a terrorist is, we cannot even admit that for example, those two kids involved in columbine were terrorists. If we cannot agree on what a terrorist is, how exactly are we supposed to win the war?

Second we have to define victory, what is winning the war? How many people must be killed in order to achieve victory? Or will it truly be an endless war from which we will kill terrorists from now until the end of time?

The reason this war is difficult to win is because we have not really explained the war. It's still a war that most people don't understand, except for the people fighting it, they seem to understand.

So as a thought experiment, can anyone here define what a terrorist is, and then once we do this can anyone here define what victory is and what it looks like? Finally how far away are we from victory and do our actions bring us closer or further from victory?

As of this moment, I think the war on terror and the war on terrorism are two different things. The war on terror, this is the esoteric understanding of the war, the war on terrorism is exoteric, and in reality do we really know what victory is when the war is undefineable? Is the war on Al Qaeda? If it were, well now Saddam and Iraq are involved so it must not be just Al Qaeda, is the war on Iran too? The whole middle east? Islam? I don't know.

I welcome anyone to define it, in specific, I'd like an extreme conservative to define it because conservative American's seem to understand the war better than anyone else. I also welcome any muslim extremist here to define it.

Moderates like myself, we don't really define it because we aren't passionate about it in the same way. I can see the economic reasoning behind some of the actions. I can see the rational behind disarming Iran if it has nuclear weapons. If the war is rational I can understand it, but on both sides, rarely is there rational debate on the extreme ends of the spectrum, and without rational debate you cannot win the middle.

This sounds ultra-modern, but it's about globalization. I'm not talking about just economics, I'm talking about culture. Radical Muslims feel like their culture is under attack and so they are fighting against the West, which is the cultural force moving in to supplant Islam. Of course, it's not that simple, but that's what it boils down to in the end.

Terrorist is just a word. Al-Qaeda, and groups like it, are paramilitary organizations fighting a war against the West. They are guerillas, and this is a global guerilla war.

That may be an oversimplification, but the point was kind of off-topic so I don't feel like writing an essay about it. Maybe if someone started a separate thread about Globalization and Terrorism, I could expand upon it.

A Moderate Muslim Perspective on Pope Benedict's comments.



Byline by M J Akbar

An intriguing part of the conversation between the Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus and "an educated Persian" now made world-famous by Pope Benedict XVI, is that the Persian seems to have no name. There is no mention of it in the speech made by the Holy Father during his "Apostolic Journey" to the University of Regensburg on 9/12.

The Persian must have been an intellectual of some importance if he was good enough to merit an audience with an "erudite" emperor. Does his name exist in the original text, since it was "presumably the Emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402"? Was the name mentioned in the version produced by Professor Theodore Khoury, which the Pope has read, and which he used in a speech on a critical aspect of a sensitive theme at a time of conflict, on the Islamic doctrine of "holy war"? I ask because names lend greater credibility to text. Was the name omitted because Muslims of the educated kind preferred anonymity? Not at all. Imam Ghazali and Ibn Khaldun were household names at the time of this dialogue.

There are other uncertainties in the Pope’s speech, which purports to be about "Faith, Reason and the University: Memories and Reflections" in which he quotes Manuel’s ignorant, but, given the history of the early and medieval Church’s continual diatribe against Islam and its Prophet, predictable view. This discussion on "holy war" appeared in the seventh conversation and was "rather marginal to the dialogue as a whole". It is interesting that Pope Benedict should select what was "rather marginal" for emphasis and ignore the apparently more substantive issues that were discussed. What is genuinely disconcerting is that the Holy Father should accept Manuel’s taunting, erroneous and provocative depiction of the Prophet’s message without any qualification. Pope Benedict is not at all disturbed by phrases as insulting as "evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached". This is utterly wrong, as even a cursory understanding of Islam would have made apparent. Are the Pope’s speechwriters equally biased or ignorant? The Pope treated Manuel’s observation and commentary as self-evident truth.

I have a further question: Why didn’t the Pope quote the Persian scholar’s answer to Manuel? It was a conversation, after all. Are we to believe that the Persian gave no answer, that he did not challenge such a rant? He could not have been much of a scholar in that case. If he did not reply he justifies his anonymity.

What is aggravating is that the Pope has been free with assumptions, and liberal with its first cousin, innuendo. The peaceful piety of Manuel becomes an indictment of Islam, which is held to be violent in preference and doctrine. The innuendo is cleverly expressed, indicating that some effort has been taken to be clever. The famous verse of the Quran, that "There is no compulsion in religion", is juxtaposed with the proposition that "According to the experts, this is one of the Suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat". The implication is that when he was not under threat, he drew out his sword and went on a rampage. This is the kind of propaganda that the Church used to put out with abandon in the early days, adding gratuitously comments about believers and "infidels". This is the line that those who have made it their business to hate Muslims, use till today. But the Vatican had stopped such vilification, and it is unfortunate that Pope Benedict has revived it.

If he had consulted a few experts who understood Islam, he might have been better educated on "holy war".

It is absolutely correct that no war verse was sent down to the Prophet during his Mecca phase. Despite the severest persecution, to the point where he almost lost his life, he never advocated violence. There are innumerable verses in the Quran extolling the merits of peace, and a peaceful solution to life’s problems — including a preference for peace over war. The Quran treats Christians and Jews as people of the Book, despite the fact that they did not accept the Prophet’s message. It praises Jesus as "Ruh-Allah", or one touched by the spirit of Allah (this is the best translation I can think of). Mary, mother of Jesus, is accepted as virgin, although the Quran is equally clear that Jesus is a man, and not the son of God.

The war verses are sent to the Prophet only when he has been in Medina for some time, and has become not only a leader of the community but also head of a multi-faith state. War, in other words, is permitted as an exercise in statecraft, and not for personal reasons, including persecution. Further, it is circumscribed with important conditions. Surely no one, including Pope Benedict, believes that a state cannot ever take recourse to war? Indeed, the history of the Vatican is filled with war. The Quran’s view of war, as an answer to injustice, certainly merits more understanding than censure.

Manuel’s view is better understood in the context of his times. He was monarch of a once-glorious but now dying empire. The Ottomans had been slicing off territory for centuries; the first Crusade had been called by Pope Urban II three centuries before to save the Byzantines from Muslim Turks. The heart of the empire, Constantinople, was now under serious threat. If Tamerlane (another Muslim) had not suddenly appeared from the east and decimated the Ottomans, Constantinople might have fallen during that siege which so depressed Manuel. It was hardly a moment when the Byzantines could have the most charitable view of an Islamic holy war. What is less understandable is why Pope Benedict should endorse a fallacy.

The present Pope is not a successor to the great and wise John Paul II. He is heir to predecessors like Pope Nicholas V who issued "The Bull Romanus Pontifex" in January 1455. This Holy Father sought "to bestow favours and special graces on Catholic kings and princes, who ... not only restrain the savage excesses of the Saracens (that is, Muslims) and of other infidels, enemies of the Christian name, but also for the defence and increase of the faith vanquish them..." He then praises King Alfonso for going to remote places "to bring into the bosom of his faith the perfidious enemies of him and of the life-giving Cross by which we have been redeemed, namely the Saracens and other infidels..."

And so on. This was the philosophy that created the Inquisition in which Muslims and Jews were killed and driven out of Catholic kingdoms in Spain and Portugal after the Christian reconquests. Do note that Muslims did not have any exclusive copyright over the use of the term "infidel".

I have no particular desire to introduce 16th century dialectic into contemporary attempts to bridge inter-faith misunderstanding, but it is pertinent that Nicholas V became Pope some sixty years after Manuel’s conversations with the unnamed Persian. Equally, there is no point in quoting from, say, Dante’s rather bilious descriptions of the Prophet and Hazrat Ali for that language belongs to a different world.



A suggestion to those who believe in an "international outcry". Hyper-reactions tend to suggest nervousness. Islam is not a weak doctrine; it is built on rock, not sand. Reason is a more effective weapon than anger.

http://www.mjakbar.org/mjblog.htm

I think the Pope's right, and Muslims are proving it. Back then, however, the Church had a jihad of it's own called the Crusades, complete with Jewish massacres and plently of forced conversions.

At least they grew out of it.

It's unfair to call every Muslim violent, but enough of them use their religion as justification for violence and self-righteousness that it's a valid complaint.

I don't think the pope would lie. He called it as he sees it. Does the word 'forgive' exist in the Muslim dictionary?

So what if Muslims refer to the USA as the 'great Satan', that wouldn't get the Christians there riled up would it?....er, wait a minute, I take that back.

As an atheist I just shake my head. Even though people die over religious remarks I can't help thinking of those who today will look at their religion closely enough to see it as it really is and break with their faith. Whether they become atheists or not doesn't matter, its questioning the faith that's important.

I don't think the pope would lie. He called it as he sees it. Does the word 'forgive' exist in the Muslim dictionary?

So what if Muslims refer to the USA as the 'great Satan', that wouldn't get the Christians there riled up would it?....er, wait a minute, I take that back.

Somehow this will eventually be blamed on the Jews. By both sides.

As an atheist I just shake my head. Even though people die over religious remarks I can't help thinking of those who today will look at their religion closely enough to see it as it really is and break with their faith. Whether they become atheists or not doesn't matter, its questioning the faith that's important.

So if the US model of democracy involves invading other countries to protect its interests and maintain its status quo, there is something wrong with democracy and not with the people who are using it as an excuse?

So if the US model of democracy involves invading other countries to protect its interests and maintain its status quo, there is something wrong with democracy and not with the people who are using it as an excuse?

Boy, its tough for anyone to keep religion and politics separate.

The one thing wrong with democracy is that it can't separate the two either.

So if the US model of democracy involves invading other countries to protect its interests and maintain its status quo, there is something wrong with democracy and not with the people who are using it as an excuse?
That is the Neo-Con philosophy, not democracy per se. There IS something very wrong with the Neo-Cons, and the evangelical Christians who support them.

That is the Neo-Con philosophy, not democracy per se. There IS something very wrong with the Neo-Cons, and the evangelical Christians who support them.

One might say the same thing about terrorists.

And yet, although moderate Americans do not like to be associated with their governments policies, they find themselves explaining this to every non-American they meet outside the US.

Moderate Muslims also end up in the exact same position re: Islam.

edit: the difference being, we don't enjoy any benefits from the policies of terrorists.
Quite the reverse, in fact.

We do deserve criticism for our government's actions.

We do deserve criticism for our government's actions.

Yes, but to what extent?

Is every American personally responsible for every government decision in the ME or elsewhere?

Cos it sure looks like the moderate Muslims have to answer for each and every terrorist activity, regardless of which part of the world they come from or what their personal beliefs represent.

To the same extent Muslims do for their religion. Criticism, but not necessarily criminal prosecution. All religious nuts should answer for the harm their religion does.

To the same extent Muslims do for their religion. Criticism, but not necessarily criminal prosecution. All religious nuts should answer for the harm their religion does.

Yes, but who determines the culprit?

Are the soldiers in Iraq fair game for the government's actions?

I do.

I don't understand the question.

Thats the thing... Islam and Christianity are the human elements. This whole conflict has practically nothing to do with anything written in sterile ink and paper. Thousand year old words can be bent any which way to rationalize whatever the hell you choose to do. This conflict is more about living culture.

That isn't to say that Islamic culture is bad, its just struck through with cancerous elements. A running theme throughout history is that moderates are rarely in command of anything except by virtue of social inertia whenever any number of radicals are present. Moderates want only to live their lives and raise their families. Radicals are the ones that form armies and risk their lives for one cause or another. That tends to give them a certain amount of dominance.

One problem I see is that there is very little done against these elements by their own people. Terrorists cloak themselves in the image and word of Islam and by doing so make themselves effectively a sacred cow. To speak or act against them is seen in many places as un-Islamic and thus you would be siding with evil.


You obviously, don't know much about the history or truth of Christianity or Islam. The human element, what I mean by that is, no matter what the words say, humans who feel hatred will make a case for their emotion. Most muslims know Bin Laden is wrong and was nothing like Mohammed.

Mohammed was living during a time period where you had to be aggressive like that just to survive. Jesus believed in the same ideas, but Jesus was so passive that he got slaughtered, we have to remember that Mohammed came hundreds of years after Jesus and likely remembered what happened to Jesus and decided that in order to keep Islam pure, holywar was required to defend it, as self defense, a form of religious self defense.

Mohammed living during a time where it was kill or be killed, conquer or be conquered, enslave or be enslaved, so to talk about Mohammed in such a way, as if Christians did not do the same thing, whats the point? It's coming from the Pope, not some athiest. If an athiest wants to condemn organized religion as being violent and aggressive, fine, point taken, but for the Pope to say it, it's a completely different meaning. Do we really want religious leaders to start fighting?

The truth is, religion and self defense are linked, you can see this just by reading the art of war. Really, comments like what the Pope made, it does not help to moderate the debate, it will only serve to piss off Muslims who will take it very seriously. Why exactly do we want to provoke extremism?

Now, if you want the Pope to use this language, be aware that Jesus can just as easily be attacked. Mohammed was aggressive, yes, and Jesus was so passive that he refused to defend himself at all, and we all know that the average person is somewhere in the middle, passive until provoked. Why do we want to provoke the mainstream muslims and mainstream christians?

I do.

I don't understand the question.

I mean there are two ways to handle this:

1. they are criminals

2. they are fanatics because of their religion

Which view is likely to garner the support of the moderate majority?

This sounds ultra-modern, but it's about globalization. I'm not talking about just economics, I'm talking about culture. Radical Muslims feel like their culture is under attack and so they are fighting against the West, which is the cultural force moving in to supplant Islam. Of course, it's not that simple, but that's what it boils down to in the end.

Terrorist is just a word. Al-Qaeda, and groups like it, are paramilitary organizations fighting a war against the West. They are guerillas, and this is a global guerilla war.

That may be an oversimplification, but the point was kind of off-topic so I don't feel like writing an essay about it. Maybe if someone started a separate thread about Globalization and Terrorism, I could expand upon it.

I understand that, I understand not everyone wants American culture, but hey some of Europe does not want American culture.

If you think this is about culture, it vastly complicates everything down to the atomic degree, because how exactly do we claim muslims have a unified culture, or that the west has a unified culture?

Globalization and ecomomics I understand.

We do deserve criticism for our government's actions.

Shut up masochist. If someone has a prolem with our government they should write a letter to our President, not to me. I did not make these decisions, and I'm sick of Europeans and Muslims blaming all Americans. I'm also sick of American's blaming America, only about 20% of the country are neo-conservatives.

Surely you don't think that's an excuse for violence and murder eh?

I think most "thinking muslims" would agree with sam that this is no big deal.

I don't think it's an excuse for violence and murder and I doubt that 'thinking muslims' would think so either, but the reactionaries live for stuff like this, they will seize upon it and innocent people will die in the crossfire as the terrorists will indeed use it as an excuse.

The reaction has already been fierce, though not too violent; why do you think the Pope listened to advice and has apologised personally so swiftly? Because he made a ballsup and the Vatican knows it.

I mean there are two ways to handle this:

1. they are criminals

2. they are fanatics because of their religion

Which view is likely to garner the support of the moderate majority?
I'm still not totally sure what you're asking.
Americans aren't inherently criminal and neither are Muslims, but we all deserve some blame for having our country run by criminals and warmongers.

I'm still not totally sure what you're asking.
Americans aren't inherently criminal and neither are Muslims, but we all deserve some blame for having our country run by criminals and warmongers.

I mean targeting all Muslims for the actions of terrorists is equivalent to targeting all Americans for foreign policies and the net result is still the same.

I cannot do anything about an Al-Qaeda terrorist anymore than you can do anything about the war in Iraq (well maybe if you vote).

Targeting the behavior is more effective than targeting the group.

So if there is criminal behavior that is what should be targeted.

I'm not making it very clear maybe.

So if there is criminal behavior that is what should be targeted.

War on Criminals?

War on Criminals?

Why not? :D

I guess it beats War on "Turrr".

I mean targeting all Muslims for the actions of terrorists is equivalent to targeting all Americans for foreign policies and the net result is still the same.

I cannot do anything about an Al-Qaeda terrorist anymore than you can do anything about the war in Iraq (well maybe if you vote).

Targeting the behavior is more effective than targeting the group.

So if there is criminal behavior that is what should be targeted.

I'm not making it very clear maybe.
But I'm not advocating targeting of Muslims for criminal prosecution, only criticism of their religion. I don't know of any other religion that includes the concept of holy war.

But I'm not advocating targeting of Muslims for criminal prosecution, only criticism of their religion. I don't know of any other religion that includes the concept of holy war.

All religions include the concept of holy war.

http://www.ppu.org.uk/learn/infodocs/st_religions.html

Not Buddhism.

Not Buddhism.

http://www.fightingarts.com/reading/article.php?id=450

http://www.mandala.hr/5/baran.html

Holy wars are for Holy idiots!!!

Good try, but in the first case, martial arts has nothing to do with being aggressive, and in the second, it was simply zennists following along with their nation rather than zen as the driving force.

Still, all organized religion makes people crazy and they all deserve to be criticized and ridiculed.

Holy wars are for Holy idiots!!!

In that case you'll be happy to know that even the pagans and neoliths had wars, they just didn't use religion to make them look good.

http://www.sarissa.org/war/war_cam.php

http://history.eserver.org/neolithic-war.txt

Good try, but in the first case, martial arts has nothing to do with being aggressive, and in the second, it was simply zennists following along with their nation rather than zen as the driving force.

Still, all organized religion makes people crazy and they all deserve to be criticized and ridiculed.

Do you believe that atheists will not fight if they feel threatened?

All you need is enough of them in one place to form an organised group.

I'm not talking about defending yourself, but killing for an ideology. No Muslim was put in danger by American military bases in Saudi Arabia, for instance. In Islamic law, it is illegal to convert someone to another religion besides Islam, punishable by death.

I'm not talking about defending yourself, but killing for an ideology. No Muslim was put in danger by American military bases in Saudi Arabia, for instance. In Islamic law, it is illegal to convert someone to another religion besides Islam, punishable by death.

They are a different culture with different values. If the people there don't like it, they can move out. The Sharia law in Islam is as open to interpretation as the Quran,

If they don't agree, no one can force them to change. Education and reform cannot happen overnight. Remember when communism was a crime in the US?

Not really, especially the women. But that's besides the point. I would have the same criticism for a nation that claims to be free but arrests communists.

I don't care really what their culture is if it didn't effect ours. The fact is the US is being portrayed as a demonic power in popular Islamic culture, with the implication that any means necessary to fight it is within reason. There is a difference between fighting an enemy you know to be a human being like you, and fighting a holy war against supernatural forces, where your reward is eternal.

Not really, especially the women. But that's besides the point. I would have the same criticism for a nation that claims to be free but arrests communists.

I don't care really what their culture is if it didn't effect ours. The fact is the US is being portrayed as a demonic power in popular Islamic culture, with the implication that any means necessary to fight it is within reason. There is a difference between fighting an enemy you know to be a human being like you, and fighting a holy war against supernatural forces, where your reward is eternal.

I never heard any Muslim terrorist say he was doing it for supernatural forces.

And I haven't seen the US treat the Arabs like human beings either.

Not really, especially the women. But that's besides the point. I would have the same criticism for a nation that claims to be free but arrests communists.

I don't care really what their culture is if it didn't effect ours. The fact is the US is being portrayed as a demonic power in popular Islamic culture, with the implication that any means necessary to fight it is within reason. There is a difference between fighting an enemy you know to be a human being like you, and fighting a holy war against supernatural forces, where your reward is eternal.
haha you took his avatar.

I never heard any Muslim terrorist say he was doing it for supernatural forces.
You have never heard of a muslim terrorist doing his thing in 'the name of Allah'?

You have never heard of a muslim terrorist doing his thing in 'the name of Allah'?

Nope, they all have down to earth reasons.

If they say Allaho-Akbar.

Guess what? It's a cultural thing.

In Iran when you are frustrated with someone that you are talking to you say la ilaha illallah. Here in Australia they show Iranian movies rather frequently on a foreign language channel called SBS. In these movies they always translate this literally and I do love it when I am watching a movie with an Australian and he/she turns to me puzzled wondering why that man just spontaneously said 'there is no god but God' in the middle of a heated argument :

http://akramsrazor.typepad.com/islam_america/2006/08/the_limitations.html

Nope, they all have down to earth reasons.

And it's true because sam says so. :rolleyes:

If they say Allaho-Akbar.

Guess what? It's a cultural thing.

And if they call for a day of anger due to a criticism of their religion, guess what? It's intolerance.

It is up to us Muslims to change that, no one else can do it.

This is true Sam, and unfortuenately there not doing very much of it. Silently there are many Islamic that favor the "rapture" just as there are many Christians who want the same bs.

What is truly wrong here Sam, is to take religion as a whole, so damn literal. It's been what? Few milliniums now, havent we evolved passed this shit yet? We are not moving forward, fact is religion is keeping us stagnant, and the proof of that stagnation is Islamic countries, and our Western idiotic policies.

As for the one who laughed at this Irag war being an illegal war. Yes it is and it's no laughing matter.

click (http://www.counterpunch.org/bacher05302003.html)

click (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm)

**Two facts are absolutely clear:


• The invasion was launched without official sanction, let alone encouragement, from the United Nations. Thus it has not been waged in accordance with accepted standards of international law.

• The invasion was launched, and the occupation has continued, without an official declaration of war by the U.S. Congress. Thus it has not been waged in accordance with accepted standards of U.S. constitutional law.**
click (http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0920-01.htm)

Yea! that qualifies as a fucking illegal war! :bugeye:

And it's true because sam says so. :rolleyes:

And if they call for a day of anger due to a criticism of their religion, guess what? It's intolerance.

http://akramsrazor.typepad.com/islam_america/2006/05/understanding_t.html

"fair game" implies that both sides are playing by a common set of rules.

Pope Benedict XVI quoted a Byzantine Emperor as condemning Mohammed "with startling brusqueness". Though, the Pope said, the Emperor Michael Paleologos II must have known the Koranic injunction that there should be no compulsion in matters of religion, the Emperor also told a Muslim general, "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 first question I’d ask is: Was Islam spread by killing other people during Mohammad’s life time or wasn’t it?

Then I'd say it doesn't matter. Xianianity’s missionaries have destroyed more civilizations than one could count. And while the Pope is acting like a hypocrite, he’s not stupid, he knew the reaction he’d get from Muslims and he got it. It’s probably part of the larger marketing campaign to sew up China - the last significant market left to tap.


I wonder? Do most Catholics think that Muslims, who obviously know something of “Jesus”, are going to go to heaven? How can a Xian (or a Muslim) sit there and say that they completely respect anothers belief when they clearly believe that the other persons belief is incorrect? When the stated goal is to convert them from their incorrect belief to ones own correct belief. How many Xians would be happy to see their wife, husband, parents, children, ect.. convert to Islam or how many Muslims would happy if their wife, husband, parents, children, ect.. converted to Xianity? Not many I’d wager.

Not to mention if a monotheist were to convert to Atheism or Polytheism!?!? Heaven forbid! ;)

I wonder: Can the beliefs of Monotheists or Polytheists or Atheists or Taoists …. be accommodated within the world view of Buddhism? If so, then a Buddhist could honestly be accepting of those beliefs. I do not think the same can not be said of monotheists. As such, while I would be accepting of the Dali Lama coming out to say we should respect another’s belief, whenever I hear the same from the Pope or an Ayatollah it almost makes me want to laugh or puke.

Michael

"fair game" implies that both sides are playing by a common set of rules.

They seem to be.

Kill innocents and prove a point. (whatever that is)

They seem to be.

Kill innocents and prove a point. (whatever that is)

Well then you answered your own question, however sad the answer may be.

Don't want to take this thread off track but this comment misses the point of why JC died.

Mohammed was living during a time period where you had to be aggressive like that just to survive. Jesus believed in the same ideas, but Jesus was so passive that he got slaughtered

It was for the reincarnation of the soul (ie life everlasting).

They seem to be.

Kill innocents and prove a point. (whatever that is)

No, Sam, I don't think that's the rules exactly. I believe it's "The side who kills the MOST innocent people is declared the winner!"

Hell, anyone can kill a bunch of innocent people, but it takes a real winner to kill thousands or millions of 'em! :)

"Kill one person, it's a horrible crime; kill millions, it's a only statistic."

Baron Max

Hell, anyone can kill a bunch of innocent people, but it takes a real winner to kill thousands or millions of 'em!

Hiroshima, Nagasaki :rolleyes:

BTW why is the US so worried that others posses nuclear weapons?, when they are the only ones who have ever used them against humanity ;)