PDA

View Full Version : Muslims Lash Out at Pope's Remarks



Ray
15 Sep 06,, 16:14
Muslims Lash Out at Pope's Remarks

Benedict's criticism of Islamic violence draws sharp rebukes and may threaten his Turkey trip.
By Tracy Wilkinson, Times Staff Writer
September 15, 2006

ROME — Pope Benedict XVI flew back to Rome on Thursday to face an international flurry of protest over comments he made critical of historical Islamic violence during a six-day trip to his native Germany.

Muslim clerics and community leaders from Europe to the Middle East and beyond condemned the pope's comments made this week. In Turkey, the first Muslim country the pope is scheduled to visit, the nation's leading religious official demanded an apology and told the pontiff to "look in the mirror" when he assails religious violence.

The furor may jeopardize Benedict's trip, scheduled for Nov. 28, in what would be an embarrassing contretemps for the Vatican.

"I do not see any use in somebody visiting the Islamic world who thinks in this way about the holy prophet of Islam," the Turkish official, Ali Bardakoglu, told the news channel NTV. "He should first rid himself of feelings of hate."

The reactions follow a speech by the pope Tuesday at the University of Regensburg in which he attacked the Muslim concept of holy war as a violation of God's will and nature. He used the word "jihad," a politically and emotionally charged Arabic term for holy war or struggle. And he quoted a 14th century Byzantine emperor who derided Islam and its founder, the prophet Muhammad.

The emperor, Manuel II Paleologus, said, according to Benedict, that Muhammad had introduced "things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

Benedict, in the same speech, held up Christianity as the "profound encounter of faith and reason."

As the backlash grew, the Vatican issued a statement Thursday evening defending the pope and saying he did not intend to offend Islam.

"It is clear that the Holy Father's intention is to cultivate respect and dialogue toward other religions and cultures, and that clearly includes Islam," said the statement by chief Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi.

"What is in the Holy Father's heart is a clear and radical rejection of religious motives for violence," Lombardi said.

Critics, such as Aiman Mazyek, head of the Central Council of Muslims in Germany, offered a litany of brutalities in Christianity's history, saying Catholicism too has a bloodstained past.

"One only has to recall the Crusades and the forced conversions of Jews and Muslims in [Medieval] Spain," Mazyek told the German newspaper Der Tagesspiegel, also noting the Vatican's relationship with Hitler and Catholic conquests of Latin America. "I do not think the church should point a finger at extremist activities in other religions."

It is not yet clear if reaction to the pope's comments will snowball into something more violent, as was the case when a Danish newspaper published cartoons last year satirizing Muhammad. Deadly riots erupted across the Muslim world.

The pope, by contrast, is a world religious leader whose comments come in a broader context that also advocates tolerance and cultural dialogue.

Rhetorically, though, the fury was spreading.

Pakistan's parliament today unanimously adopted a resolution condemning what it called the pope's "derogatory" remarks.

In Cairo, the Muslim Brotherhood, a highly influential organization with membership across the Middle East, demanded an apology. The pope "aroused the anger of the whole Islamic world and strengthened the argument of those who say that the West is hostile to everything Islamic," said a statement by the group's leader, Mohammed Mahdi Akef.

In Kuwait, a high-ranking Islamist official, Haken Mutairi, called on all Arab and Muslim states to recall their ambassadors from the Holy See and expel any Vatican diplomats "until the pope says he is sorry for the wrong done to the prophet and to Islam, which preaches peace, tolerance, justice and equality," Agence France-Presse reported.

Sheik Yusuf Qaradawi, whose broadcasts on Al Jazeera television make him one of Islam's most influential scholars, said the pope was mistaken in his characterization of the faith.

"Muslims have the right to be angry and hurt by these comments from the highest cleric in Christianity," Qaradawi said on Al Jazeera.

"We ask the pope to apologize to the Muslim nation for insulting its religion, its prophet and its beliefs."

Pakistani scholars and clerics also voiced anger over Benedict's comments, saying he should avoid echoing President Bush and instead work to bring Christians and Muslims together.

Muslim groups in France and Italy also expressed dismay and confusion over the remarks.

The angry reaction in Turkey is in many ways the most significant because the upcoming pilgrimage has been portrayed as an important milestone in religious dialogue.

Bardakoglu said Benedict had defamed Muhammad in "hostile and arrogant" remarks that would "fan a feud" between the faiths. Bardakoglu, as head of the state's religious affairs department, appoints and controls all imams in the country.

While in Turkey, Benedict also intends to meet with the spiritual leader of the world's Orthodox Christians, the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I.

tracy.wilkinson@latimes.com
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-pope15sep15,1,2074485.story?coll=la-headlines-world

Jihad is the Holy Terror waged by the Moslems against non Moslem. primarily to convert them. It is a War. War brings destruction, pillage, rape, loot and surfaces all the negativity of Man.

In fact, Jihad personifies hate and intolerance!

Likewise, I believe in the Quaran it is written that Allah has exhorts all Moslems to treat all non Moslem as the enemy. Again, this is fomenting hate!

Religion is basically to bring solace to the troubled soul. Here we find Islam emphasising hatred to a placid soul to become troubled!

It is thus a paradox that religion is inciting hatred.

Therefore, how is the Pope wrong?

Why should he apologise for telling the Truth?

Again that is odd. They expect the Pope to tell a Lie to hide the Truth.

Funny!

And what is odd are these statements:

"We ask the pope to apologize to the Muslim nation for insulting its religion, its prophet and its beliefs."

Turkish official, Ali Bardakoglu, told the news channel NTV. "He should first rid himself of feelings of hate".

Holy almighty!

The Prophet Mohammed believes that wars fomenting religious hatred is holy?

To hate others who form mankind is holy?

And the Turkish official is ridiculous to state that the Pope has feelings of Hate. Jihad is Hate itself. And the Islamic Prophet Mohamet has incited and sanctified this Hate.

Therefore, who is the actual one who has snactified Hate?

InfiniteDreams
15 Sep 06,, 17:43
I completely agree. The muslim leaders are completely unwilling to acknowledge that there are serious issues with their religion that lead it's members down a destructive path. Instead they want an apology when it's pointed out!:rolleyes:
They spin it around to take attention off the issue by becoming offended and start asking for an apology. And some people are dumb enough to buy into it.

This latest only makes it more transparent the divide between West and Islam. If it was anyone other than the pope we'd probably be seeing rioting all over the islamic world. But since it was the 'Pope' the muslim leaders are holding back their followers for the time being asking only for an apology.

The Pope should have spoken up along time ago and should have been much harsher if you ask me. The divide is starting to get more and more medieval.

Ray
15 Sep 06,, 18:04
These Islamofascists are so weird in their arguments.

And they have no qualms in appearing to be prize idiots and without logic!

They live in hate and are taught so by their scriptures and then they pretend to be purer than the snow on Mount Etna!

Note: applicable to the senseless Moslems and not to those who realise the fallacy of the reasoning and there are many who believe that the logic is warped.

Hari_Om
15 Sep 06,, 18:23
The Turks may have been the fastest clerics off the block but when it comes to legislatures, living up to the Islamic Republic part of its title, Pakistan is the first of block.

I simply cannot understand the scale of the reaction implied by the Pakistan’s legislature passing a resolution. Agitated Clerics would be de rigueur but not certainly not agitated resolution passing legislators.

All the Pope did was to refer to comments made by a long dead Byzantine emperor, Manuel II Paleologus on Jihad in a dialogue with a long dead “educated Persian” presumable of the Muslim faith.

Read the full text of the Papal speech for yourselves here :

Papal Address at University of Regensburg (http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=94748)

Pakistan’s Parliament should spend less time working itself up into a frenzied resolution passing mode on non events such as this and more time on passing resolutions that repeal Hudood laws that deny Pakistani women the basic human right of not being held responsible for being raped :


Pakistan's parliament adopts resolution condemning Pope's remarks about Islam (http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=2a87969c-d3ad-436a-98b6-d5b4ace02962&k=45930)

Friday, September 15, 2006
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) - Pakistan's parliament on Friday unanimously adopted a resolution condemning Pope Benedict for making what it called "derogatory" comments about Islam, and seeking an apology from him for hurting Muslims' feelings.

The resolution, moved by hardline legislator Fazal Karim, was supported by both government and opposition lawmakers in the National Assembly or lower house of parliament.

Chaudhry Ameer Hussain, speaker of the National Assembly, allowed Karim to move the resolution after Karim said the pope had insulted Islam and the Prophet Muhammad, and hurt the feelings of the entire Muslim world by making "derogatory remarks."

The measure was adopted a day after the Vatican sought to defuse criticism of the pontiff's remarks, when he quoted from a book recounting a conversation between 14th century Byzantine Christian Emperor Manuel Paleologos II and an educated Persian on the truths of Christianity and Islam.

"The emperor . . . said, I quote, '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,' " he quoted the emperor as saying.

On Thursday, the Vatican said the Pope had not intended to offend Muslim sensibilities with the remarks.

But the Foreign Ministry in Islamabad termed the remarks "regrettable."
"Anyone who describes Islam as a religion as intolerant encourages violence," Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam said.

"What he has done is that he has quoted very offensive remarks by some emperor hundreds of years ago," Aslam said on Friday. "It is not helpful (because) we have been trying to bridge the gap, calling for dialogue and understanding between religions."

She said Muslims had a long history of tolerance, adding that when the Catholic kingdom of Spain expelled its Jewish population in 1492 they were welcomed by Muslim countries such as the Turkish Ottoman Empire.

Ray
15 Sep 06,, 18:29
Pakistan likes to believe that they are the lodestar of Islam.

They live in a state of denial but are clever enough to know which side of the bread is buttered.

Do we hear of any criticism of George Bush's actions?

GBW will just choke their oxygen supply! :)

They live of the munificence of the US, as they have throughout their recorded history, and that is God's Own truth.

gunnut
15 Sep 06,, 18:38
Islam isn't a very tolerant religion. Most muslims aren't bad. The problem is the few who make the most noise and interpret their religion in the most violent way possible.

Ray
15 Sep 06,, 18:40
Religious hatred, Saudi-style

By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | February 6, 2005

IN WHICH country are Muslims being taught the following lessons?



''Everyone who does not embrace Islam is an unbeliever and must be called an unbeliever. . . . One who does not call the Jews and the Christians unbelievers is himself an unbeliever."

''Whoever believes that churches are houses of God . . . or that what Jews and Christians do constitutes the worship of God . . . is an infidel."

To offer greetings to a Christian at Christmas -- even to wish ''Happy holidays" -- is ''a practice more loathsome to God . . . than imbibing liquor, or murder, or fornication."

Jews ''are worse than donkeys." They are the corrupting force ''behind materialism, bestiality, the destruction of the family, and the dissolution of society.

Muslims who convert to another religion ''should be killed because [they] have denied the Koran."

Democracy is ''responsible for all the horrible wars" of the 20th century, and for spreading ''ignorance, moral decadence, and drugs."

If this sounds to you like the kind of fanaticism you might encounter in Saudi Arabia -- where the established creed is Wahhabism, an intolerant and extremist version of Islam -- you're right. Unfortunately, this religious hatred isn't confined to the Arabian peninsula. Thanks to the Saudi government's elaborate campaign to export Wahhabism worldwide, such anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, anti-Western poison can also be found throughout the United States.

We know this from the work of Freedom House, a venerable human rights group that promotes democracy around the globe. In a new report, it documents the alarming degree to which Wahhabist propaganda has penetrated American mosques.

Between November 2003 and December 2004, Freedom House researchers assembled more than 200 publications from 15 mosques and Islamic centers in Illinois, Texas, California, New York, New Jersey, Virginia, and Washington, D.C. All the documents were linked to the Saudi religious establishment -- many were official Saudi government publications or had been supplied by the Saudi embassy, and several of the mosques disseminating them are funded by the Saudi royal family. Each was reviewed by independent translators, who found them replete with what Freedom House calls ''a totalitarian ideology of hatred that can incite to violence."

Before Sept. 11, 2001, the notion that literature in mosques could be dangerous might have struck some as alarmist. But of the 19 terrorist-hijackers that day, 15 were Saudi, and all of them were steeped in the relentless hostility to ''infidels" that the Saudi publications inculcate. For some, the mosques were a crucial resource. The King Fahd Mosque in Los Angeles, for example, was a home away from home for hijackers Nawaf al Hazmi and Khalid al Mihdhar. The mosque's imam, Fahad al Thumairy, was an accredited Saudi diplomat in Los Angeles until 2003, when he was expelled from the United States for suspected involvement in terrorism.

Perhaps Hazmi and Mihdhar spent some of their time at the mosque studying ''Loyalty and Dissociation in Islam," a Wahhabi work that emphasizes the duty of every Muslim to cultivate enmity between themselves and non-Muslims. ''Be dissociated from the infidels," the book instructs. ''Hate them for their religion, leave them, never rely on them for support, do not admire them, and always oppose them in every way according to Islamic law."

Or perhaps they consulted ''Religious Edicts for the Immigrant Muslim." As Nina Shea of Freedom House observes, they would have found in its pages detailed instructions for intensifying their resentment of Americans: ''Never greet the Christian or Jew first. Never congratulate the infidel on his holiday. Never befriend an infidel unless it is to convert him. Never imitate the infidel. Never work for an infidel. Do not wear a graduation gown because this imitates the infidel."

It is important to note that most Muslims do not share the xenophobic Wahhabi dogma. Freedom House undertook its study in part because ''many Muslims . . . requested our help in exposing Saudi extremism in the hope of freeing their communities from ideological strangulation." Now that Freedom House has done so, it is up to moderate American Muslims to purge their mosques of the Saudi toxin, and to ostracize the extremists.

And it is up to Washington to end the pretense of US-Saudi harmony. President Bush last week referred to Saudi Arabia as one of ''our friends" in the Middle East. But friends don't flood friends' houses of worship with hateful religious propaganda. We are in a war against radical Islamist terrorism, and Saudi Arabia supplies the ideology on which the terrorists feed. Until that incitement is stifled, the Saudis are no friends of ours.


Jeff Jacoby's e-mail address is jacoby@globe.com.
© Copyright 2005 Globe Newspaper Company.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/02/06/religious_hatred_saudi_style/

Applicable world wide.

There is hardly any difference in the countries of Islam especially since Saudi money is eating into the innards of Islamic societies worldwide and the Islamic govts are encouraging it!

On the path to self destruct and then lament, beating their chest, that all are against them!

Lunatock
15 Sep 06,, 20:27
These Islamofascists are so weird in their arguments.

And they have no qualms in appearing to be prize idiots and without logic!

They live in hate and are taught so by their scriptures and then they pretend to be purer than the snow on Mount Etna!

Note: applicable to the senseless Moslems and not to those who realise the fallacy of the reasoning and there are many who believe that the logic is warped.

Actually the original concept of Jihad was to protect Muslims that were under attack, alas those taking part in Jihad wound up as human beings with varying amounts of power, and like in many other cases power corrupts and we have an infestation of who's who in terrorism.

If it was actually following Islam as you should thats to blame, there'd be a lot more wacked out mullahs from the PDF comedians to people like A-Jad and Bashir Al-Asaad. Yours truly would probably be no exception.

PubFather
15 Sep 06,, 23:48
Its funny how the Pope can make one diplomactic faux pas yet Muslims are nearly untouchable in reverse.. immature religion.. just a shame we have to suffer it adolescence

Archer
16 Sep 06,, 05:02
Actually the original concept of Jihad was to protect Muslims that were under attack, alas those taking part in Jihad wound up as human beings with varying amounts of power, and like in many other cases power corrupts and we have an infestation of who's who in terrorism.

Jihad as has been practised in reality has almost always been in pursuit of power and to convert others to the faith. Terrorism today is peanuts compared to whats gone on in the name of Jihad earlier. Before Islam came, practically the entire Indian subcontinent was Buddhist, Hindu and animist. Today the ratio is roughly 45 % Muslim, the entire region's history is literally a tale of jihad for different reasons to expand Islam and of extreme violence waged on "non believers" & one which is still continuing today. The entire ME and a wide swathe of Central Asia fell to Islam. Was it all under peaceful missionary proselytisation? Hardly. What happened when Islam reached Europe? Again, the battle cry was of jihad.


If it was actually following Islam as you should thats to blame, there'd be a lot more wacked out mullahs from the PDF comedians to people like A-Jad and Bashir Al-Asaad. Yours truly would probably be no exception.

What makes you think PDF is an exception? You & many American Muslims are the exception.

The attitudes displayed in PDF are common across Pak Muslims and I have lost count of the times, I have politely cut a conversation short with otherwise erudite Arab, ME, Persian and on occasion Malaysian gentlemen and ladies who suddenly drip venom when it comes to "jews" and express extreme contempt for whatever they see as idolatry.
PDF is just the open expression of those attitudes, without having the problem of hiding behind the mask of tolerance when amongst strangers & non Muslims who will not "understand" them.

Ray
16 Sep 06,, 06:34
Actually the original concept of Jihad was to protect Muslims that were under attack, alas those taking part in Jihad wound up as human beings with varying amounts of power, and like in many other cases power corrupts and we have an infestation of who's who in terrorism.

If it was actually following Islam as you should thats to blame, there'd be a lot more wacked out mullahs from the PDF comedians to people like A-Jad and Bashir Al-Asaad. Yours truly would probably be no exception.

I am totally with you and I had mentioned in my post that the sensible Moslems do not warp up the concept.

The concept of Jihad for self defence (I have to read this again) is inalienable as it is for any human being.

However, historically, Jihad has been used for purposes other than what it is said to mean. Temporal exigencies have conveniently converted the spiritual rationale.

Today, any person wanting revenge invokes the name of Allah and calls it a Jihad!

That is the issue.

thedefender
16 Sep 06,, 08:35
Ray i thought that you were a sencible Indian amoung all the indians in this forum but Alas! what you have said does not coincide with that.Ray you must have done your home work before saying all that you must have done some search and should have searched the meaning of Jihad.

Jihad has a great significance in the lives of Muslims .
Like any language, Arabic has unique words which have a particular meaning which cannot be translated precisely. The best translation known for such a word
is the following: a sincere and noticeable effort (for good); an all true and unselfishstriving for spiritual good.Jihad as presented in the Quran and any of the other scriptures implies the striving of spiritual good. This Jihad particularly involves change in one's self and mentality.
It may concern the sacrifice of material property, social class and even emotional comfort solely for the salvation and worship of God ALONE. As a result, one who practises Jihad will gain tremendously in the Hereafter.
Jihad may also reflect the war aspects in Islam .
The fighting of a war in the name of justice or Islam, to deter an aggressor , for self defense, and/or to establish justice and freedom to practice religion , would also be considered a Jihad .In the light and essence of Islam and the Quran, there is no war which is holy;this, under any circumstances whatsoever. In fact the whole text of the Quran and the religion of Islam revolves around the concept of peace, not war. To many people's ignorance, Islam is also a word that share the same root of the.Arabic word Salaam meaning peace. To Islam , war is unholy, Jihad must ean anything but holy war. However, there are times, in certain circumstances, when Islam tolerates, permits and sometimes
even accepts the practise of war. Islam strongly emphasizes the ideas of justice, freedom and opposition to oppression. There is another condition: fighting for self-defense. War is tolerated in these conditions, but if there is a possibility to avoid war, then this alternative, as long as it is reasonable, must be taken. Even as an enemy, the Muslim must respect his adversaries. Mere, brutal and barbaric fighting is condemned in Islam . Islam condemns barbaric killing of any human being. During military activities, the killing must not include civilians, provided they do not attack or provoke or share directly in the war. . The enemies, even when at war, must be treated justly. If victory is achieved in any war for justice, then there is to be no
oppression, enslavement or injustice to the enemy or people. Nor must there be control over source of wealth of the nation or people or colonial regimes. The division of people, putting them one against the other is also forbidden. Justice and freedom must be established. The cooperation and acceptance of other cultures and peoples is compulsory too.
In Brief; the meaning the media gives to this word (Jihad) is false. This word does not mean a holy war, for there is nothing holy about a war in Islam . There are times when war is tolerated, permitted and even, in some case, to a point accepted, but never considered holy. Islam (Submission) is a religion of peace, no matter what certain media or deranged individuals say or claim. Islam revolves around the concept of peace.

Yeah its a bad time going on for Muslims.Do you remember that how did the Islam spread in the Indo-Pak Subcontinent.Muhammad Bin Qasim raided because his ship was looted in the port which was situated in the Subcontinent.And the people from your relegion which were Hidus started converting to Muslim just because of the behaviour of the Muslim ruler he was very kind upon you and did not looted your homes and did not made killings of innocent people which were living in the villages.I know the Hindus dont know their history and how can they condemn the Muslims upon such issues.
And i have to say about the Christians, a new edition of Bible comes every year.The nation which cannot take care of their relegious book how can they be the lodestar of peace, there are a lot of Bible available one os Bible of Youhana and others how can someone judge which one is true.Tell me where is the orignal Bible which was given to you by the Holy Prophet Jesus.This shows that they can change anything which is notsuitable to them like they have done with the Bible.

Hari_Om
16 Sep 06,, 09:22
Hmmm………..

To claim to be an expert on specific individuals on the forum, besides lying that is, IMO requires the individual being a long time lurker or an existing member creating a duplicate identity or a previously banned member sneaking back onto the forum.

Wonder which one of the options is correct ?

PubFather
16 Sep 06,, 09:25
Yeah its a bad time going on for Muslims.
And Christians, Jews and Hindus because of the actions of terrorists.


Do you remember that how did the Islam spread in the Indo-Pak Subcontinent.
I doubt Ray was alive then :rolleyes:


Muhammad Bin Qasim raided because his ship was looted in the port which was situated in the Subcontinent.And the people from your relegion which were Hidus started converting to Muslim just because of the behaviour of the Muslim ruler he was very kind upon you and did not looted your homes and did not made killings of innocent people which were living in the villages.I know the Hindus dont know their history and how can they condemn the Muslims upon such issues.
Interesting history lesson. Do you remember how Islam spread into North Africa? How it spread in Iberia? Sicily? Do you know the significance of Charles Martel and the battle of Poitiers? Or the Balkaans?

Islam is as guilty (perhaps more guilty) as Christianity for spreading its message by the sword.



And i have to say about the Christians, a new edition of Bible comes every year.The nation which cannot take care of their relegious book how can they be the lodestar of peace,
OK, Christians arent a "nation", they are lots of individuals and groups in lots of nations.


there are a lot of Bible available one os Bible of Youhana and others how can someone judge which one is true.Tell me where is the orignal Bible which was given to you by the Holy Prophet Jesus.This shows that they can change anything which is notsuitable to them like they have done with the Bible.
Theologically you may be correct - but at least Christians have translated their text into their natives languages - so that all can read it. Christians grew out of the reading it in a different language that no one understood.

Oh, and the New Testament wasnt given to Christians by Jesus. It was written by various apostles/disciples and edited and selected by Church fathers at various church councils.

cris29
16 Sep 06,, 10:59
Islams complaining again, dont they know Freedom of Speech.

Why is it they can criticise christianity and other religions non stop, and we dont react and we criticise them like 1/10 of the time they do too use and they dont stop complaining and rioting.

TopHatter
16 Sep 06,, 13:51
Ray i thought that you were a sencible Indian amoung all the indians in this forum but Alas! what you have said does not coincide with that.

Alas! Somebody either didn't read the forum rules or figured the rules don't apply to them...and their actions coincide with that. :eek:

Bill
16 Sep 06,, 14:20
Personally, not only do i hope the Pope doesn't appologize, but i hope he STEPS UP the rhetoric.

If a global war is coming it's best we get it over with...

Tronic
16 Sep 06,, 14:28
Islams complaining again, dont they know Freedom of Speech.

apparently not...

Hari_Om
16 Sep 06,, 15:01
Alas! Somebody either didn't read the forum rules or figured the rules don't apply to them...and their actions coincide with that. :eek:

TH,

Which one caused the banning ? :

1. Existing member creating a duplicate identity or
2. A previously banned member sneaking back onto the forum.

Hari_Om
16 Sep 06,, 15:04
Back to the issue.........

In a remarkable display of “tolerance”, Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry’s official spokesperson Tasnim Aslam suggests that the Pope is ignorant.

If the intention was to demonstrate the tolerance of Islam to Catholics, hardly the kind of comment to make given the Mehmet Ali Agca episode .

May the Gods preserve the Ummah from the actions of Pakistan as the bottom line is that Pakistan has played a role in the killing of more Muslims than Non Muslims :


……. "Anyone who says that Islam is intolerant or Islam is spread through use of force shows his ignorance. Islam is a very tolerant religion," Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam said. …….

[Muslim (http://yalibnan.com/site/archives/2006/09/muslim_communit.php) communities outraged over Pope's insults[/url]

TopHatter
16 Sep 06,, 15:27
TH,
Which one caused the banning ?
Existing member creating a duplicate identity

Ray
16 Sep 06,, 15:46
Ray i thought that you were a sencible Indian amoung all the indians in this forum but Alas! what you have said does not coincide with that.Ray you must have done your home work before saying all that you must have done some search and should have searched the meaning of Jihad.

Jihad has a great significance in the lives of Muslims .
Like any language, Arabic has unique words which have a particular meaning which cannot be translated precisely. The best translation known for such a word
is the following: a sincere and noticeable effort (for good); an all true and unselfishstriving for spiritual good.Jihad as presented in the Quran and any of the other scriptures implies the striving of spiritual good. This Jihad particularly involves change in one's self and mentality.
It may concern the sacrifice of material property, social class and even emotional comfort solely for the salvation and worship of God ALONE. As a result, one who practises Jihad will gain tremendously in the Hereafter.
Jihad may also reflect the war aspects in Islam .
The fighting of a war in the name of justice or Islam, to deter an aggressor , for self defense, and/or to establish justice and freedom to practice religion , would also be considered a Jihad .In the light and essence of Islam and the Quran, there is no war which is holy;this, under any circumstances whatsoever. In fact the whole text of the Quran and the religion of Islam revolves around the concept of peace, not war. To many people's ignorance, Islam is also a word that share the same root of the.Arabic word Salaam meaning peace. To Islam , war is unholy, Jihad must ean anything but holy war. However, there are times, in certain circumstances, when Islam tolerates, permits and sometimes
even accepts the practise of war. Islam strongly emphasizes the ideas of justice, freedom and opposition to oppression. There is another condition: fighting for self-defense. War is tolerated in these conditions, but if there is a possibility to avoid war, then this alternative, as long as it is reasonable, must be taken. Even as an enemy, the Muslim must respect his adversaries. Mere, brutal and barbaric fighting is condemned in Islam . Islam condemns barbaric killing of any human being. During military activities, the killing must not include civilians, provided they do not attack or provoke or share directly in the war. . The enemies, even when at war, must be treated justly. If victory is achieved in any war for justice, then there is to be no
oppression, enslavement or injustice to the enemy or people. Nor must there be control over source of wealth of the nation or people or colonial regimes. The division of people, putting them one against the other is also forbidden. Justice and freedom must be established. The cooperation and acceptance of other cultures and peoples is compulsory too.
In Brief; the meaning the media gives to this word (Jihad) is false. This word does not mean a holy war, for there is nothing holy about a war in Islam . There are times when war is tolerated, permitted and even, in some case, to a point accepted, but never considered holy. Islam (Submission) is a religion of peace, no matter what certain media or deranged individuals say or claim. Islam revolves around the concept of peace.

Yeah its a bad time going on for Muslims.Do you remember that how did the Islam spread in the Indo-Pak Subcontinent.Muhammad Bin Qasim raided because his ship was looted in the port which was situated in the Subcontinent.And the people from your relegion which were Hidus started converting to Muslim just because of the behaviour of the Muslim ruler he was very kind upon you and did not looted your homes and did not made killings of innocent people which were living in the villages.I know the Hindus dont know their history and how can they condemn the Muslims upon such issues.
And i have to say about the Christians, a new edition of Bible comes every year.The nation which cannot take care of their relegious book how can they be the lodestar of peace, there are a lot of Bible available one os Bible of Youhana and others how can someone judge which one is true.Tell me where is the orignal Bible which was given to you by the Holy Prophet Jesus.This shows that they can change anything which is notsuitable to them like they have done with the Bible.

Where have you descended from?

Indeed, if fight is from freedom and whatever, then why such a shenanigan by Moslems over GWB and his War on Terrorism?

Bush too is fighting for justice as also freedom to practice his religion. Fortunately, he has not asked Moslem to pay jezia as non believers, nor forced anyone to convert by the sword!

You see I think in Esparanto and so my thoughts above could not be translated in its true form!:biggrin:

Are you from Planet Earth?

Your thoughts are convoluted and not quite on the ball.

Do read the Koran yourself.

Ray
16 Sep 06,, 15:49
Existing member creating a duplicate identity

Maybe that was not fair.

Did you refer him to a psychiatrist?

He is a merely schizophrenic.

He thus wanted to have two IDs on the same forum! :rolleyes:

Archer
16 Sep 06,, 15:55
Ray i thought that you were a sencible Indian amoung all the indians in this forum but Alas! what you have said does not coincide with that.Ray you must have done your home work before saying all that you must have done some search and should have searched the meaning of Jihad.
[QUOTE]
Jihad has a great significance in the lives of Muslims .
Like any language, Arabic has unique words which have a particular meaning which cannot be translated precisely. The best translation known for such a word
is the following: a sincere and noticeable effort (for good); an all true and unselfishstriving for spiritual good.Jihad as presented in the Quran and any of the other scriptures implies the striving of spiritual good. This Jihad particularly involves change in one's self and mentality.
It may concern the sacrifice of material property, social class and even emotional comfort solely for the salvation and worship of God ALONE. As a result, one who practises Jihad will gain tremendously in the Hereafter.
Jihad may also reflect the war aspects in Islam .
The fighting of a war in the name of justice or Islam, to deter an aggressor , for self defense, and/or to establish justice and freedom to practice religion , would also be considered a Jihad .In the light and essence of Islam and the Quran, there is no war which is holy;this, under any circumstances whatsoever. In fact the whole text of the Quran and the religion of Islam revolves around the concept of peace, not war. To many people's ignorance, Islam is also a word that share the same root of the.Arabic word Salaam meaning peace. To Islam , war is unholy, Jihad must ean anything but holy war. However, there are times, in certain circumstances, when Islam tolerates, permits and sometimes
even accepts the practise of war. Islam strongly emphasizes the ideas of justice, freedom and opposition to oppression. There is another condition: fighting for self-defense. War is tolerated in these conditions, but if there is a possibility to avoid war, then this alternative, as long as it is reasonable, must be taken. Even as an enemy, the Muslim must respect his adversaries. Mere, brutal and barbaric fighting is condemned in Islam . Islam condemns barbaric killing of any human being. During military activities, the killing must not include civilians, provided they do not attack or provoke or share directly in the war. . The enemies, even when at war, must be treated justly. If victory is achieved in any war for justice, then there is to be no
oppression, enslavement or injustice to the enemy or people. Nor must there be control over source of wealth of the nation or people or colonial regimes. The division of people, putting them one against the other is also forbidden. Justice and freedom must be established. The cooperation and acceptance of other cultures and peoples is compulsory too.
In Brief; the meaning the media gives to this word (Jihad) is false. This word does not mean a holy war, for there is nothing holy about a war in Islam . There are times when war is tolerated, permitted and even, in some case, to a point accepted, but never considered holy. Islam (Submission) is a religion of peace, no matter what certain media or deranged individuals say or claim. Islam revolves around the concept of peace.

Ah, welcome back Jana!

Yup more of the usual. Off with their heads, and then sit and quibble over words. Sigh.

Almost NONE of these fancy declarations have been implemented in a war between Muslims and non Muslims. "War of defense"- sure, my continued existence as a non Muslim is an offence to some Muslims and hence a war of self defence is all too great to pull me in line. Or I can convert.

What a beautiful choice!


Yeah its a bad time going on for Muslims.Do you remember that how did the Islam spread in the Indo-Pak Subcontinent.Muhammad Bin Qasim raided because his ship was looted in the port which was situated in the Subcontinent.And the people from your relegion which were Hidus started converting to Muslim just because of the behaviour of the Muslim ruler he was very kind upon you and did not looted your homes and did not made killings of innocent people which were living in the villages.I know the Hindus dont know their history and how can they condemn the Muslims upon such issues.


Is that what is taught in Pakistan? Figures. Qasim raided the subcontinent after preparing extensively, after there were reports of its wealth and "potential" for the empire. He began in Sindh, and the excuse given was the usual BS- "war of defence". After that the pogroms began. The sword of Islam has been the bloodiest in Asia, and to pass it off as some kind of kindness is ludicrous.

After that, the kind of murder and mayhem perpetrated by Muslims in the subcontinent has almost no parallels in the modern world, bar some of the Khanates campaigns or the disease ravaged collapse of the South American civilizations. The key difference here was that the Muslims were not strong enough to completely wipe out the native people who constantly resisted them. And of course, their continued survival is thanks to Islamic kindness!

Where have I heard this before? I guess the Israelis have to be happy the Arabs didnt wipe them out and kowtow to them as well!



And i have to say about the Christians, a new edition of Bible comes every year.The nation which cannot take care of their relegious book how can they be the lodestar of peace, there are a lot of Bible available one os Bible of Youhana and others how can someone judge which one is true.Tell me where is the orignal Bible which was given to you by the Holy Prophet Jesus.This shows that they can change anything which is notsuitable to them like they have done with the Bible.

What that tells me is that the Christians have the brains to continuously move forward, not look at medieval Arabia as the ideal to implement in 2006!

leib10
16 Sep 06,, 16:32
Personally, not only do i hope the Pope doesn't appologize, but i hope he STEPS UP the rhetoric.

If a global war is coming it's best we get it over with...

My thoughts exactly. Plus, isn't the Pope supposed to be infallible? Or has that belief lost its appeal after it was inevitably disproven? My memory of Catholicism has faded. :confused:

But what he said was basically true. So why should he refute his comments in the first place?

mich
16 Sep 06,, 17:11
[QUOTE=thedefender;266498]
...a bad time going on for Muslims... QUOTE]
This reply is only for some of the Indians who read the blog entitled "muslims lash out at pope's remarks": from reading some of the comments it seems that the Indians(Hindus) are still angry about Zahir Ud-din Muhammad(Babar) and his invasion of India around AD 1492. after all, this guy(babar) and his turkish hordes came from samarkhand and pillaged and killed Hindus and muslims and looted, desecrated Hindu temples. still yet, a lot of Indians seem to be angry because another midevil trukish marauder 'Timur the Lame'(Tamerlane) invaded the city of Delhi and within one week massacred 20,000-30,000 inhabitants of that city. going back further into history around 1000 to 1200 AD, the Afghan invader Mahmud of Ghazni made a resolution to himself that he would pillage India once a year(now it seems as though Mahmuds descendents in Afghanistan are paying a heavy price for Mahmuds adventurisms-this can seem a little funny to some Indians(as we say in America "what goes around comes around"). point here is what happened in history is just old history, we learn history so that mistakes of the past won't get repeated. India being "the land of spirituality", it doesn't make sense when Indians lash out at Islam. But we certainly may get angry at some of the knuckle-heads who profess to be followers of that faith. As an Indian, there is a bit of a shame when we hear other fellow Indians lash out at Islam on grounds that are totally unscientific or unreasonable.

Archer
16 Sep 06,, 18:04
Re: Post #29/ Mich.

That is quite a silly post by all standards. Keep your shame & diffidence to yourself and perhaps it may be a better world! Others will call a spade a spade and be done with it.

Islam in the Indian subcontinent was not restricted to just smash and grab pillagers, but rulers. And it is here, apart from Akbar, the mostly mild and ineffectual Bahadur Shah Zafar and the syncretic king of Mandu, where the bulk of the Islamic potentates outbid each other in acts of violence and more violence. So if you are ashamed of noting the past, be as it may, others arent. Babur was not the Bahmani sultans, or Aurangzeb, or for that matter the tinpot despots of the Slave dynasty. These were all local Islamists who in the name of religion conducted pogrom after pogrom, and the demographics in the Indian subcontinent reflect that. Where there was continued resistance, the natives survived- where non militant Buddhism had flourished but without a proper standing army to call its own and dependent on Mercs, Islam converted everyone to its sway. The power of the sword trumped all. The irony of course, is that those very regions are now the breeding ground of the worst sort of fundamentalists. But we shouldnt be surprised, even first generation Lindhs and Reids were brainwashed enough in short order.

Sorry old feller, I am not very spiritual and I wont twist my own arm trying to pat myself about being from a spiritual land, I am a very practical sort when it comes to home & hearth and defending it, and when I see Islamists indulging in the same mayhem as they have for ages AND continuing to portray themselves as the victim, its a bloody disgrace if I dont point it out.

Ordinary Muslims throughout the ages, have been sheep, many converts, others coming in with their baggage trains from afar, but they did precious little mostly when rabid fanaticism ruled. And even today, there is a sullen dismay in "why is the world beating up on us"! Its a bit farcical when the bomb blasts in Mumbai draw a hundred Muslims to demonstrate, but when George Bush arrives, there are 200,000 protesting about Iraq! Misplaced priorities or what?

The first step in reform, whether religious, or social, or cultural is admitting there is a problem. Its admitting that there are some things that need to be changed, irrespective of what happened in Arabia in xyza AD & whats written in a book.
Unless that happens, crying wolf is just going to make more and more people look at you and point out the hypocrisy.

Archer
16 Sep 06,, 18:12
My thoughts exactly. Plus, isn't the Pope supposed to be infallible? Or has that belief lost its appeal after it was inevitably disproven? My memory of Catholicism has faded. :confused:

But what he said was basically true. So why should he refute his comments in the first place?

To be honest what the pope said wasnt "very nice". And given the past history of the Catholic Church, one may well say "people in glass houses should not throw rocks".

Yet.

The fact is that it took the pope to say something that many say but wont take a stand upon in public, that there are elements of radical Islam that need to be reformed.

And that the predictable outrage from the Islamic countries was predictable in its anger, and hypocrisy (where is that anger when they show jews as sacrificing Arab kids, or over beheadings or over terrorist attacks in Mumbai, Bali or London?)

In that sense, the factor of "they asked for it" comes into play.

I think the pope apologising shows his humanity and attempt to spark a dialogue. Cardinal Ratzinger was widely reputed to be hardline. In the past he has criticized eastern faiths & now Islam. But he has not drawn his hand away after just making a slam, that does count, imho, as he is trying to not be provocative but actually meant his comments seriously, ie that he was merely referring to what an earlier gent had said - in the differences between Islamic theology and Christianity.

Ray
16 Sep 06,, 18:25
So, it is Jana!

Jana, tell me is violence a way of God?

Is violence the song of your Soul?

I am sorry you are banned. I hope you are unbanned.

I have no powers over the Admin or the Mods, but a good soul like you (though a hot head ) should be allowed to participate.

Hey Jana, hope Neo is not egging you on in the defence of Islam and Allah. He apparently has suddently been lure to the call!

Ray
16 Sep 06,, 18:34
To be honest what the pope said wasnt "very nice". And given the past history of the Catholic Church, one may well say "people in glass houses should not throw rocks".


Is telling the truth not "nice"?

Catholic Church may have been anything, but are they practising what was done by all religions in medieval times?

If the Catholic Church has junked the medieval shenanigans practiced by all at that time and have reformed, why hold it against them as if they are doing it even now?

But Islam is doing it even now!

Islam is conducting Jihad and claiming it so.

Is the Church claiming any Crusades?

Islam is issuing fatwas? Is the Church doing so?

The clock has stopped for Islam and so quite a few of them are acting as brain dead.

Be fair and forget Political Correctness.

The Islamic reaction is total bilge and bogus.

Neo
16 Sep 06,, 20:32
The Old Crusader habits die hard.

The same strains of bigotry, double standards and moral relativism we see generally in the West so clearly examplified by Bush and Blair run in the veins of this Pope.

He calls for Islamic leaders to 'take responsibility for their communities and teach their young to abhor violence' - will Christian leaders take responsibility for Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and the massacre of 250,000 Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq and the subsequent slaughter in Lebanon? What of the on-going slaughter in the Gaza?

Or are 'Chistians' graded on a 'different' scale? Is it alright for Christians to invade muslim lands and FORCE secularism (and Bush-Blair 'Bombed' Again Secular-Christianity) upon us and yet it is forbidden (violence/terrorism) for us to defend our people and lands?

He quotes from a Christian commentary of a Christian king and would not even quote the reply given by the 'Persian' scholar. Would he read the Islamic commentary on the same event? He calls for 'REASON' and yet cannot defend his faith by even bringing a balanced discussion?

Could he not 'reason' that IF Christians or Jews were 'forced' to convert to Islam, would there be Coptic Christians in Egypt? Or Croat or Serb Christians in the Balkans? Or Jews in Turkey and North Africa and even As Shams?

He is mistaken.

FORCED conversions is the speciality of the Christians. As happened to the Muslims and Jews of Al Andalus, during the protracted and Vatican sanctioned Spanish Inquisition - no doubt a moment of great quiet pride for Christiandom. :rolleyes:

SLASH
16 Sep 06,, 20:49
^^^Didn't John Paul II apologized for all the crusades started by Christan...

How about similar statements from Muslims :rolleyes: .

TopHatter
16 Sep 06,, 21:21
So, it is Jana!

Hey Jana, hope Neo is not egging you on in the defence of Islam and Allah. He apparently has suddently been lure to the call!

No, it wasn't Jana. Let's leave it be please.

Bluesman
16 Sep 06,, 21:47
The Old Crusader habits die hard.

Maybe they DID die hard, but dead they are.


The same strains of bigotry, double standards and moral relativism we see generally in the West so clearly examplified by Bush and Blair run in the veins of this Pope.

Don't really see 'em as clearly as you seem to, in ANY of the above-named individuals.


He calls for Islamic leaders to 'take responsibility for their communities and teach their young to abhor violence' - will Christian leaders take responsibility for Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and the massacre of 250,000 Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq and the subsequent slaughter in Lebanon? What of the on-going slaughter in the Gaza?

I believe that if you were passingly familiar with the things you cite you'd find that Abu G DID see people held responsible, Guantanamo is not the horror show you'd like to think it is, and your figure of a quarter-million dead Muslims at Western hands is completely hysterical mad raving CRAP. And if you'd care to define the term 'slaughter' so that it could encompass what the Israelis are forced to do to defend herself against Muslims creeps that murder children and women ON PURPOSE, I'd be interested to see just how you're able to twist a word that is so plain in meaning into something so fraught with your fevered imagination.

So, NO, maybe you'd like to aquaint yourself with some facts before you start in with YOUR moral relativism that you seem to believe absolves Muslims from the dreadfulness propagated (and in your case, excused) by the adherants of a religious doctrine that seems to be easily persuaded to become bestial and hateful toward anything it considers different. You know, like ALL bigotry does, when carried to the extreme.


Or are 'Chistians' graded on a 'different' scale? Is it alright for Christians to invade muslim lands and FORCE secularism (and Bush-Blair 'Bombed' Again Secular-Christianity) upon us and yet it is forbidden (violence/terrorism) for us to defend our people and lands?

Same scale, and it's called 'Humanity', something I believe you won't get too many adequate examples of from the more newsworthy Muslims. Defend yourselves all you feel you need to, but may I expect you to refrain from flying aircraft (OUR aircraft) into office buildings full of innocent people? That's not 'defensive', chief; it's deeply OFFENSIVE, in every sense of the word.

You should be banned for even suggesting that terrorists have a point, that it's legitimate for them to 'defend' your people and lands by the ways that they have chosen.

What the hell is wrong with your crappy religion that this is seen as somehow acceptable, is in somway justified?

Anyway, carrying on:


He quotes from a Christian commentary of a Christian king and would not even quote the reply given by the 'Persian' scholar. Would he read the Islamic commentary on the same event? He calls for 'REASON' and yet cannot defend his faith by even bringing a balanced discussion?

Oh, but YOU do such a great job, right? Listen, I'm not a Christian, and I believe the Pope is faithful to a fairy tale just like you are, but the huge difference, you see, is he would instantly be repulsed by what you see as a legitimate act of 'defense'. He would NEVER, EVER attempt to rationalize what a Muslim lauds as heroic and correct.

He's right; ayatollahs, imams, muftis, and the various frauds and hucksters that lead your version of an unreal fantasy-world of make-believe are DANGEROUS. Christians for the most part aren't, and the ones that are, are not so primarily BECAUSE they're Christians, but rather in spite of it.


Could he not 'reason' that IF Christians or Jews were 'forced' to convert to Islam, would there be Coptic Christians in Egypt? Or Croat or Serb Christians in the Balkans? Or Jews in Turkey and North Africa and even As Shams?

And Copts are daily oppressed, marginalized, and persecuted as OFFICIAL POLICY. And we all see how well the Balkans have been working out down through the centuries since Islam came with fire and sword to establish itself by force, haven't we?

You want to see where the religions live best side-by-side? Find a democracy. Not some ramshackle Middle East dictatorship mis-ruled by Muslim despots and thugs, but a Westernized and forward-looking modern nation, such as Ataturk made from the 'sick man of Europe', mired in a retrograde and benighted coil of misery that was absolutely corrupt and thoroughly Muslim, until he FORCED it to be secular, and drug it forward into the light. THAT is why there are Jews in Turkey, with their synagogues and prosperity, but in no other part of the Muslim World, with its devotion to a mad pedophile 'prophet'.


He is mistaken.

He ain't.


FORCED conversions is the speciality of the Christians.

WERE. WERE the specialty of the Christians. Hasn't happened in awhile, if you'd care to read along in your backward-regarding history of the glories of Islam and the horrors of Christianity. If you could but GET OVER the things that haven't been happening in our world since you were born and would stop feeling humilation about something that never happened to you, MAYBE we could stop your brethren from beheading any more Crusaders that have never even been to Antioch, you friggin' maniac.


As happened to the Muslims and Jews of Al Andalus, during the protracted and Vatican sanctioned Spanish Inquisition - no doubt a moment of great quiet pride for Christiandom. :rolleyes:

You gonna seethe and whine about that, and hope somebody here meets your expectation of defending something, that, while admittedly indefensible, WE DID NOT DO?

You're a crybaby, a nutcase, a VERY worthy representative of your revolting kind of chauvanism and ignorance, the Modern-Day* Muslim. You are well-suited to your faith, and that's no compliment.

May your god go with you. SOON.







*'Modern' in the sense that you're my contemporary, but distinctly Medieval in your outlook.

Lunatock
16 Sep 06,, 22:01
You want to see where the religions live best side-by-side? Find a democracy. Not some ramshackle Middle East dictatorship mis-ruled by Muslim despots and thugs, but a Westernized and forward-looking modern nation, such as Ataturk made from the 'sick man of Europe', mired in a retrograde and benighted coil of misery that was absolutely corrupt and thoroughly Muslim, until he FORCED it to be secular, and drug it forward into the light. THAT is why there are Jews in Turkey, with their synagogues and prosperity, but in no other part of the Muslim World, with its devotion to a mad pedophile 'prophet'.



Fun fact: Iran has the second largest Jewish Community in the Middle East. http://www.royahakakian.com You can even personally ask this Iranian Jew who said so.

And just fyi, but dragging The Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) -wrt to a Passion Of The Jew like libel about him- into this argument with Neo and about the various Pope haters had gotten a red beam placed center mass on Semper Fi. Carefull one doesn't creep up on you as well.

Bluesman
16 Sep 06,, 22:11
Fun fact: Iran has the second largest Jewish Community in the Middle East. http://www.royahakakian.com You can even personally ask this Iranian Jew who said so.

And just fyi, but dragging The Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) -wrt to a Passion Of The Jew like libel about him- into this argument with Neo and about the various Pope haters had gotten a red beam placed center mass on Semper Fi. Carefull one doesn't creep up on you as well.

I'll take my chances until it can be proven that he was NOT a pedophile as set down in scripture, and as long as we get the rank Popephobia from a Muslim's post, I don't really see how it can be justified as 'libel'. Neo getting a yellow card, too?

Bluesman
16 Sep 06,, 22:15
Here's a piece of the Wiki entry for 'Iranian Jews:


Discrimination
Like other religious minorities in Iran, Jews suffer from officially sanctioned discrimination, particularly in the areas of employment, education, and housing. They may not occupy senior positions in the government or the military and are prevented from serving in the judiciary and security services and from becoming public school heads.[26]

The anti‑Israel policies of the Iranian government, along with a perception among radical Muslims that all Jewish citizens support Zionism and the State of Israel, create a hostile atmosphere for the Jewish community. In 2004, many Iranian newspapers celebrated the one-hundredth anniversary of the publishing of the anti-Semitic forgery The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.[26] Jews often are the target of degrading caricatures in the Iranian press.[27] Jewish leaders reportedly are reluctant to draw attention to official mistreatment of their community due to fear of government reprisal.[26]

The legal system also discriminates against religious minorities who receive lower awards than Muslims in injury and death lawsuits and incur heavier punishments. In 2002, the law was passed that made the amount of "blood money" (diyeh) paid by a perpetrator for killing or wounding a Christian, Jew, or Zoroastrian man the same as it would be for killing or wounding a Muslim.[26]


Former president Khatami visits a Tehran Jewish center.With some exceptions, there is little restriction of or interference with the Jewish religious practice; however, education of Jewish children has become more difficult in recent years. The Iranian government reportedly allows Hebrew instruction, recognizing that it is necessary for Jewish religious practice. However, it strongly discourages the distribution of Hebrew texts, in practice making it difficult to teach the language. Moreover, the Iranian government has required that several Jewish schools remain open on Saturdays, the Jewish Sabbath, in conformity with the schedule of other schools in the school system. Since working or attending school on the Sabbath violates Jewish law, this requirement has made it impossible for observant Jews both to attend school and adhere to a fundamental tenet of their religion.[26]

Jewish citizens are permitted to obtain passports and to travel outside the country, but they often are denied the multiple-exit permits normally issued to other citizens. With the exception of certain business travelers, the authorities require Jewish persons to obtain clearance and pay additional fees before each trip abroad. The Iranian government is concerned about the emigration of Jewish citizens and permission generally is not granted for all members of a Jewish family to travel outside the country at the same time.[26]

In 2000, 10 of 13 Jews arrested in 1999 were convicted on charges of illegal contact with Israel, conspiracy to form an illegal organization, and recruiting agents. Along with 2 Muslim defendants, the 10 Jews received prison sentences ranging from 4 to 13 years. An appeals court subsequently overturned the convictions for forming an illegal organization and recruiting agents, but it upheld the convictions for illegal contacts with Israel with reduced sentences. One of the 10 was released in February 2001 and another in January 2002, both upon completion of their prison terms. Three additional prisoners were released before the end of their sentences in October 2002. In April 2003, it was announced that the last five were to be released. It is not clear if the eight who were released before the completion of their sentences were fully pardoned or were released provisionally.[26] Even though anti-Semitic acts are rare in Iran, the trial led to the rising of tensions against the Jewish community.[27] During and shortly after the trial, Jewish businesses in Tehran and Shiraz were targets of vandalism and boycotts, and Jewish persons reportedly have suffered personal harassment and intimidation.[26]

So tell me all about the tolerance of a Muslim.

Lunatock
16 Sep 06,, 22:17
Here's a piece of the Wiki entry for 'Iranian Jews:



So tell me all about the tolerance of a Muslim.

Well I seem to have gotten along fine with Roya, among other Jews. Give or take thinking Dr. Zoidberg is effing hilarious. :)

Bluesman
16 Sep 06,, 22:18
Well I seem to have gotten along fine with Roya, among other Jews. Give or take thinking Dr. Zoidberg is effing hilarious. :)

Awesome. You must not be one of the guys I'm talking about, then.

Lunatock
16 Sep 06,, 22:20
^^^Didn't John Paul II apologized for all the crusades started by Christan...

How about similar statements from Muslims :rolleyes: .


I'd give Osama a case of lead poison just as soon as Bluesman & Snipe would, if that's an answer you seek.

Lunatock
16 Sep 06,, 22:25
I'll take my chances until it can be proven that he was NOT a pedophile as set down in scripture, and as long as we get the rank Popephobia from a Muslim's post, I don't really see how it can be justified as 'libel'. Neo getting a yellow card, too?

Done, The Pope is a religous figure after all.

Bluesman
16 Sep 06,, 22:27
I'd give Osama a case of lead poison just as soon as Bluesman & Snipe would, if that's an answer you seek.

Truly, you are The Man. I know from your posts that I have nothing to fear fom you, you're a good and stout opponent of terror, and a loyal American.

You, I like. Anybody that gets wound up about al-Andalus, though, or describing terrorism as a proper 'defensive' measure, or invokes the goddam' Spanish Inquisition (of all things) to prove how Christianity and this Pope have nothing to say about the problem that Greater Islam is causing all of the rest of us...

Well, jam THAT crap. No sale, and I'll be teeing off on the pinhead that proposes that lunacy. You can definitely have faith in THAT.

Bill
16 Sep 06,, 22:27
The Old Crusader habits die hard.

The same strains of bigotry, double standards and moral relativism we see generally in the West so clearly examplified by Bush and Blair run in the veins of this Pope.
Oh blah, blah, blah....The East is everybit as manipulative and hypocritical as the West.

Get over your Eastern self.

Bluesman
16 Sep 06,, 22:30
Done, The Pope is a religous figure after all.

Then I'm climbing down. I can think what I will, others can believe what they wish.

But I intend to meet a ridiculous post with scorn, derision and contempt when it earns it, remaining, as well as I can, within the bounds of the rules.

Lunatock
17 Sep 06,, 03:42
Truly, you are The Man. I know from your posts that I have nothing to fear fom you, you're a good and stout opponent of terror, and a loyal American.

You, I like. Anybody that gets wound up about al-Andalus, though, or describing terrorism as a proper 'defensive' measure, or invokes the goddam' Spanish Inquisition (of all things) to prove how Christianity and this Pope have nothing to say about the problem that Greater Islam is causing all of the rest of us...

Well, jam THAT crap. No sale, and I'll be teeing off on the pinhead that proposes that lunacy. You can definitely have faith in THAT.

The not-so-fine points of Christianty that I know of are Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwel, and a Christian Militia in the Democratic Republic of Congo that are just as quick to murder whoever as the armed bands of Muslims all over northern Africa, and this Christian Militia also practices cannabilism.

And it's good to know that there are a few people wiith their heads screwed on straight, unlike some dumb dicks in the dept of homeland security and their boyfriends in the fecking kremlin.

I cOmE iN PEaCE
17 Sep 06,, 03:49
pope has just spoken out for the billion strong catholics to view muslims as the enemy.no catholics lashing out at the pope ???

smilingassassin
17 Sep 06,, 04:05
Its not surprising that someone from Amsterdam would fear the pope. Christianity sees that city as the sin capital of the world with postitution and drug shoot up clinics everywhere.

To use the Spainish inquisition to paint Christianity as just as carniverous as Islam is truely scraping the bottom of the barrel. Whens the last time you saw Christians burning a witch at the stake? Now, whens the last time you saw a Muslim finatic beheading an infidel for some fictitious crime against Islam? Chances are someone is facing that fate right now as we speak......

I cOmE iN PEaCE
17 Sep 06,, 04:14
Its not surprising that someone from Amsterdam would fear the pope. Christianity sees that city as the sin capital of the world with postitution and drug shoot up clinics everywhere.

To use the Spainish inquisition to paint Christianity as just as carniverous as Islam is truely scraping the bottom of the barrel. Whens the last time you saw Christians burning a witch at the stake? Now, whens the last time you saw a Muslim finatic beheading an infidel for some fictitious crime against Islam? Chances are someone is facing that fate right now as we speak......
pope can convince one very well known nut to drpo more bombs.that is worse than any beheading or burning witch

TopHatter
17 Sep 06,, 04:17
Its not surprising that someone from Amsterdam would fear the pope.

Just on the off-chance that you're referring to Neo, he is in fact a Pakistani Muslim who happens to live in Amsterdam.

Confed999
17 Sep 06,, 04:36
pope can convince one very well known nut to drpo more bombs.that is worse than any beheading or burning witch

Not sure what you're talking about. Last I heard the Catholic church was officially against war...

I cOmE iN PEaCE
17 Sep 06,, 04:42
Not sure what you're talking about. Last I heard the Catholic church was officially against war...
old pope was good.this pope i doubt.notice how his spokesman said he didnt mean to offend muslims.makes no sense after what he said.

i think he is going to stir up more trouble

Bill
17 Sep 06,, 05:59
i think he is going to stir up more trouble
Yes, it is likely he will speak the obvious truth again at some point in the future.

Confed999
17 Sep 06,, 06:05
old pope was good.this pope i doubt.notice how his spokesman said he didnt mean to offend muslims.makes no sense after what he said.

i think he is going to stir up more trouble

Saying there are bad Muslims out there isn't even false, let alone trouble worthy.

Hari_Om
17 Sep 06,, 06:20
pope can convince one very well known nut to drpo more bombs.

:confused: .

Who exactly is this "very well known nut" ? Do tell.

Karthik
17 Sep 06,, 06:53
A widespread persecution complex coupled with Jihad is a deadly combination that has come to define Islam of today.

Even as we speak, Islamic radicals in Thailand have started a spate of bomb attacks against the majority Buddhist population there. And this when Buddhists are some of the most peaceful people one can ever meet.

The Pope was right in what he said. I hope he never apologises.

AlpErTunga
17 Sep 06,, 14:26
I want to share some information about my religion, brothers. Firstly, in present time many people who think they are perfect muslims are not even a muslim according to muslim Holy Book Kuran.

Allah orders people to begin every action saying "Bismillahirrahmanirrahim". This arabic sentence means "I begin with the name of Allah who saves and forgives.". And first sentence of every "sura(sections of Kuran)" of Kuran is this sentence naturally. Except one sura; Repentence Sura (9th sura of Kura). Because Allah orders muslims to fight against to "people who fights against to muslims". These are only original words of Kuran which orders muslims to fight ( they are from Repentance Sura) ;

5. But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and pay Zakat, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft- forgiving, Most Merciful.

12. But if they violate their oaths after their covenant, and attack you for your Faith,- fight ye the chiefs of Unfaith: for their oaths are nothing to them: that thus they may be restrained.

13. Will ye not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Messenger, and attacked you first? Do ye fear them? Nay, it is Allah Whom ye should more justly fear, if ye believe!

14. Fight them, and Allah will punish them by your hands, and disgrace them, help you (to victory) over them, heal the breasts of Believers,

41. Go ye forth, (whether equipped) lightly or heavily, and strive and struggle, with your goods and your persons, in the Cause of Allah. That is best for you, if ye (but) knew.

111. Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the Garden (of Paradise): they fight in His Cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in Truth, through the Torah, the Gospel, and the Quran: and who is more faithful to his Covenant than Allah? Then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme.

123. O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him.


All violation in Islam is that. My religion orders to fight against to people who fight against to people. And to forgive who swears off. Is it too harsh?

But if you are talking about terrorists, who kills innocent civillians, they have no relationship with true Islam anyway.

TopHatter
17 Sep 06,, 14:57
But if you are talking about terrorists, who kills innocent civillians, they have no relationship with true Islam anyway.

Well, these murdering savages sure do proclaim themselves to be at Allah's right hand.

And they seem pretty popular with a large portion of the Islamic community, especially in the Middle East.

After all, they're killing Jews and Americans, and apparently that's a good thing.

Bluesman
17 Sep 06,, 15:10
I want to share some information about my religion, brothers. Firstly, in present time many people who think they are perfect muslims are not even a muslim according to muslim Holy Book Kuran.

Allah orders people to begin every action saying "Bismillahirrahmanirrahim". This arabic sentence means "I begin with the name of Allah who saves and forgives.". And first sentence of every "sura(sections of Kuran)" of Kuran is this sentence naturally. Except one sura; Repentence Sura (9th sura of Kura). Because Allah orders muslims to fight against to "people who fights against to muslims". These are only original words of Kuran which orders muslims to fight ( they are from Repentance Sura) ;

5. But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and pay Zakat, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft- forgiving, Most Merciful.

12. But if they violate their oaths after their covenant, and attack you for your Faith,- fight ye the chiefs of Unfaith: for their oaths are nothing to them: that thus they may be restrained.

13. Will ye not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Messenger, and attacked you first? Do ye fear them? Nay, it is Allah Whom ye should more justly fear, if ye believe!

14. Fight them, and Allah will punish them by your hands, and disgrace them, help you (to victory) over them, heal the breasts of Believers,

41. Go ye forth, (whether equipped) lightly or heavily, and strive and struggle, with your goods and your persons, in the Cause of Allah. That is best for you, if ye (but) knew.

111. Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the Garden (of Paradise): they fight in His Cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in Truth, through the Torah, the Gospel, and the Quran: and who is more faithful to his Covenant than Allah? Then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme.

123. O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him.


All violation in Islam is that. My religion orders to fight against to people who fight against to people. And to forgive who swears off. Is it too harsh?

But if you are talking about terrorists, who kills innocent civillians, they have no relationship with true Islam anyway.

Attaboy! Get out there and kill all them unbelievers! Make sure that apostates, like terrorists, are destroyed like the vermin they are. Make sure you take out their kids, too. ANYbody that hasn't interpreted the Koran (or Qu'ran or Khoran or D'airy Q'ueen or whatever) is immediately killed as the Koran commands. YOU know what it says; YOU need to make sure that these guys that don't have your perception are wiped out, lest Islam become diluted with various sects and factions that may lead to mis-interpretations by people that are disposed to justify violence.

What are you waiting for, Faithful One? God wants those guys that got it wrong killed right away, or Islam will risk being taken over by violent splitters that will use the holy words for evil.

Jesus Christ. (If you'll forgive the expression...and I'll bet there are some Christians that wouldn't.) There is no hope for this world as long as the Irrational prevails over Reason.

Ray
17 Sep 06,, 16:03
AlpErTunga

But why must Allah wage war to punish till the people convert and pay Zakat.

Why must Allah be ever so keen humiliate

Why Allah has to be so negative?

What have the non Moslem done to have Allah going hammer and tongs?

If Allah only said Jihad is in self defence, then how come countries converted when many countries did not even attack Moslems of Arabia, where the first Moslems converted in peace?

People of Inda never went to Arabia or anywhere, there is no justification to wage Jihad "in self defence".

Imagine the number who were converted so much so Pakistan came into being carved out of India!

It is a different matter that they claim that they are all descendants of Moahmet.

Kansas Bear
17 Sep 06,, 17:14
The Old Crusader habits die hard.

The same strains of bigotry, double standards and moral relativism we see generally in the West so clearly examplified by Bush and Blair run in the veins of this Pope.

He calls for Islamic leaders to 'take responsibility for their communities and teach their young to abhor violence' - will Christian leaders take responsibility for Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and the massacre of 250,000 Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq and the subsequent slaughter in Lebanon? What of the on-going slaughter in the Gaza?

Or are 'Chistians' graded on a 'different' scale? Is it alright for Christians to invade muslim lands and FORCE secularism (and Bush-Blair 'Bombed' Again Secular-Christianity) upon us and yet it is forbidden (violence/terrorism) for us to defend our people and lands?

He quotes from a Christian commentary of a Christian king and would not even quote the reply given by the 'Persian' scholar. Would he read the Islamic commentary on the same event? He calls for 'REASON' and yet cannot defend his faith by even bringing a balanced discussion?

Could he not 'reason' that IF Christians or Jews were 'forced' to convert to Islam, would there be Coptic Christians in Egypt? Or Croat or Serb Christians in the Balkans? Or Jews in Turkey and North Africa and even As Shams?

He is mistaken.

FORCED conversions is the speciality of the Christians. As happened to the Muslims and Jews of Al Andalus, during the protracted and Vatican sanctioned Spanish Inquisition - no doubt a moment of great quiet pride for Christiandom. :rolleyes:

Apparently you slept through your history class. Muslim attacks on Europe occurred from 652 upto and past 1095(beginning date for the crusades), not to mention they sacked St. Peter and St. Paul(churches!!). What a shock that the Pope would call for a "crusade" against Islam, hell Europe had been under assault from Islam for 400+ years!!

Islam was also spread throughout the Iberian peninsula by force(712 ad). I guess you're a strong believer in Thrasymachus! :rolleyes:

Instead of throwing out the word "crusader" everytime someone comments on the militarism of Islam, maybe the historically ignorant should open a history book and get EDUCATED!!!

AlpErTunga
17 Sep 06,, 18:09
Attaboy! Get out there and kill all them unbelievers!

If anybody attacks to my state (in 7th century this might be "my religion"), there is no need about being nonbeliever or believer; this attacker takes suitable reaction from me. Kuran does NOT order to kill nonbelievers, orders to fight against to nonbelievers who attacks to muslims. I wish this statement is not over your capability of understanding. Because my capability of english language is not so good. ;)


the Koran (or Qu'ran or Khoran or D'airy Q'ueen or whatever)

Is THIS your style? Respect to beliefs is very unapproachable for a man who has your moral values.

AlpErTunga
17 Sep 06,, 19:06
AlpErTunga

But why must Allah wage war to punish till the people convert and pay Zakat.


Zakat is a kind of symbol there. It means regretting having attacked to muslims and respecting to muslim values again. In real meaning also, zakat is not a bad thing, it is even a perfect social action. Every muslims, who can afford to do that, gives 1/40 of their total wealth to poor people. And it is one of 5 major muslim worships. It looks like going to church every sunday.


Why must Allah be ever so keen humiliate

I don't know. But maybe s/he wants us not to do wrong things. i.e in army commanders are so keen humiliate. Because they want to train perfect soldiers.


Why Allah has to be so negative?

Maybe s/he is not negative. But s/he is too realist.


What have the non Moslem done to have Allah going hammer and tongs?

This sentences of Allah reached to Mohammad after attack of nonmuslims of Mekke. In other words; Allah did not ordered to attack, Allah ordered to reply with the same action.


If Allah only said Jihad is in self defence, then how come countries converted when many countries did not even attack Moslems of Arabia, where the first Moslems converted in peace?

I am sorry. But I could not get your sentence exactly.

................................

We are not in medieval age. So religion must be seperate from political issues of states. Vatican is a major threat for this reality of our age. If you give the title of "president of state" to a leader of a religion; these silly actions creates more serious results.

Ray
17 Sep 06,, 19:28
The Pope is at the end of brickbats from fellow Christians, justified or otherwise.

Have the Ayotollahs, Mullahs and Bigwigs of the Islamic world who condone terrorism from the pulpit ever been condemned by the Moslem world and media?

Anyway, is Jihad justified in the modern civilised world?

What is this holy cr@p of religion waging war against temporal forces!

Ray
17 Sep 06,, 19:50
[QUOTE]Zakat is a kind of symbol there. It means regretting having attacked to muslims and respecting to muslim values again. In real meaning also, zakat is not a bad thing, it is even a perfect social action. Every muslims, who can afford to do that, gives 1/40 of their total wealth to poor people. And it is one of 5 major muslim worships. It looks like going to church every sunday.


Zakat maybe the most wonderful thing for Moslems. But why must you wage war and convert the non believer just because you require zakat. And those who refuse to convert you force them to pay jezia!

Your contention that zakat is a slave for quick-change artistry i.e. attacking and then returning to Moslem value indicates Islam is a vacillating format.

Going to Church on Sunday connection is not understood. Most don't even go!


I don't know. But maybe s/he wants us not to do wrong things. i.e in army commanders are so keen humiliate. Because they want to train perfect soldiers.


You wish me to believe that non Moslems are doing things unholy and so Allah wants to humiliate? Who the Dickens is sitting in Judgement that non Moslems are doing things unholy?



Maybe s/he is not negative. But s/he is too realist.

Realist about what? That Islam is the only right way to salvation?


This sentences of Allah reached to after attack of nonmuslims of Mekke. In other words; Allah did not ordered to attack, Allah ordered to reply with the same action.

OK, go ahead and attack the Non Moslem at Mekke, but take this hangover through the ages and even now!



I am sorry. But I could not get your sentence exactly.



There are many countries where Moslems were not attacked, How come Jihad (which you claim is in self defence) was done to such countries. Take India for instance.
....


We are not in medieval age. So religion must be seperate from political issues of states. Vatican is a major threat for this reality of our age.

How is Vatican a threat?

Catholic terrorists running around wild? They are beheading? They are holding people to ransom? They are flying planes into building?


If you give the title of "president of state" to a leader of a religion; these silly actions creates more serious results.


Pray what are the Ayotollahs and other Mullahs who give fatwas? They hold their Presidents and their countries to ransom. Look at Pakistan. Because of the Mullahmen, Musharraf can't repeal the Hudood! In other words, four pious Moslem men have to see a rape going on and then give witness for it to be termed as rape! If they are watching a rape in action and not saving the woman, it means that they are not pious and in fact voyeurs. That much for piety that is demand by this Islamic law! In fact the whole concept is ridiculous and barbaric, forget about being mediaeval.

AlpErTunga
17 Sep 06,, 19:54
Have the Ayotollahs, Mullahs and Bigwigs of the Islamic world who condone terrorism from the pulpit ever been condemned by the Moslem world and media?

As a member of Turkiye; I want to share an important info with you. Leader of muslims is called as "Caliph" , caliphes were Turk since 1517 until 1924 and Turkiye abolished that title in 1924. So I and Turkish people are against to politic titles in religion. And you can estimate my idea about popes, mullahs and ayetollahs. ;)

Ray
17 Sep 06,, 19:58
Just because Turkiye has abolished the Khalife, it does not goes by default that Catholics have to follow suit.

What is your answer that even a General, who could take over a country by force (coup) cannot change the Huddood law just because of the Mullahs! I am talking about Paksitan which claims to be a progressive Islamic country!

AlpErTunga
17 Sep 06,, 19:59
And Ray; you are so angry about Pakistan. But I am a Turk. Is my only fault ,that you react against to, being muslim? I don't have enough info about Pakistan-India conflict, so I don't want to talk about that. But there is no jihad idea in Turkiye and 99% of Turkish population is muslim. So ?

BenRoethig
17 Sep 06,, 20:00
pope has just spoken out for the billion strong catholics to view muslims as the enemy.no catholics lashing out at the pope ???

Funny, I seem to remember our guest priest saying something before mass today.

BenRoethig
17 Sep 06,, 20:04
Islams complaining again, dont they know Freedom of Speech.

Why is it they can criticise christianity and other religions non stop, and we dont react and we criticise them like 1/10 of the time they do too use and they dont stop complaining and rioting.

They don't beleive in freedom of speech. It goes against their interpretation of the koran which gives clerics and religous doctraine almost absolute authority. They think they are the only true religion and have a god given right to shape the world to their will.

Tronic
17 Sep 06,, 20:17
yeh... Turkey is a secular moderate country.... the rest of the Islamic world isn't.... Whatever the Pop said had a grain of truth in it... Besides, I think several Churches were razed in the Middle East from the backlash... it just makes the Popes words sound more true... which IMO they are... Turkey is a different case.... I realize that the Turkish people probably got offended but the thing is... even if the Pope's quote doesn't hold truth with Turkey, it does so with the rest of the Islamic world...

Tronic
17 Sep 06,, 20:22
We are not in medieval age. So religion must be seperate from political issues of states. Vatican is a major threat for this reality of our age. If you give the title of "president of state" to a leader of a religion; these silly actions creates more serious results.

I agree with you... but Vatican City is not a major threat with any major weapons to the world... In almost all Islamic countries; excluding Turkey; Religion and Politics are very much mixed and ARE a threat to the world... especially with the "Islamic" Bomb which has arrived... as long as it is with the moderates, ok... but what happens when it falls into the hands of a mullah who is constantly calling for other states (read Israel) to be wiped off the map... and sadly, the "Islamic" bomb lies in a country where a certain political system has not lasted atleast a decade before being thrown over in a coup by another... how long before Mullahs take power??? that is the scary thought... and the Pope is the last thing on the world's mind...

astralis
17 Sep 06,, 21:27
i think one of the main things here which no one has yet mentioned in regards to this is,

it seems like this type of behavior- everything from firebombing churches to repeated, incessant cries for apology, to insults- is emblematic of something that extends beyond the simple (but still true) statement that islam needs reform.

i personally believe this behavior -in part- stems from the fact that many of the leaders of these islamic countries, be it sunni or shiite, have a stake in fanning these sort of flames. it brings the street's attention off THEIR own misrule, with this misrule either stemming from crappy economic policies to political repression to both. arguing against an autocracy might land you in jail, but go ahead- yell at the pope as long as you like.

Bluesman
17 Sep 06,, 21:43
I just love the irony of the entire story: Pope criticizes Islam's violence, and Islam reacts violently to it.

Ya'll hear about the 70-year old Italian nun that was shot three times in the back in the Catholic Hospital in Somalia? Yeah, apparently she was being all insulting towards Islam and trash-talkin' the Prophet (you know that's what she REALLY meant by serving the poor and sick people in the hospital) when these brave Islamic warriors made her stop her horrible deeds by valiantly killing her with assault weapons while she was going about her apostasy and heretical ministrations to the idigent poor people that were not of her faith.

The hospital was NOT burned to the ground, though, like some churches were, which is testament to the tolerance and mercy of these servants of Allah.

Okay, enough with the sarcasm, because it's not funny anymore, and I've about had it it with the unbelievable lack of control, rationality, decency or even simple humanity on display from the only segment of the Muslim world that seems to have enough motivationto act, and when they do, it's almost always with violence or the very least, CONFLICT.

The world has a problem with Islam. We've all just about reached the point that we're going to solve it in a way most favorable to the rest of us, and without reference to what's best for Islam.

Y'all better get a net over your crazies RIGHT QUICK.:mad:

Archer
18 Sep 06,, 00:05
How do these guys find so much time to demonstrate? Its like they are always on the street?!!

Kansas Bear
18 Sep 06,, 00:18
We are not in medieval age.

Amazing, that you've finally figured this out!




So religion must be seperate from political issues of states.

Like the Pakistani parliment?
The Theocracy of Iran, who's president has denied the holocaust, and threaten extermination of an entire nation?
Like the numerous terrorist groups that continue to send suicide bombers and then proclaim a martyr for Islam?





Vatican is a major threat for this reality of our age.

So the Vatican is sending suicide bombers into mosques throughout the world?? :rolleyes:

When was the last time a papal bull called for the death of anyone?




If you give the title of "president of state" to a leader of a religion;these silly actions creates more serious results.

"These silly actions", oddly don't result in the deaths of thousands of Muslims. No protests calling for the removal of Muslims......

How many christians died due to the cartoons depicting Mohammad?

I guess in this case, actions speak louder than words.:cool:

Bluesman
18 Sep 06,, 00:34
If this happened ANYwhere in the Muslim world, with the word 'Pope' replaced by 'Prophet', these people would be killed instantly, and there would be a horrendous riot that would kill a thousand more.

Islam is intolerant. It is simply undeniable.

Bluesman
18 Sep 06,, 00:36
By the way, that was a demonstration by about a hundre3d Islamic fanatics outside Westminster Cathedral today.

Here's a man that attended church there today:


As we came out about 100 Islamists were chanting slogans such as “Pope Benedict go to Hell,” “Pope Benedict you will pay, the Muja Hadeen are coming your way,” “Pope Benedict watch your back,” and other hateful things.

astralis
18 Sep 06,, 01:24
well, bluesman,


Islam is intolerant. It is simply undeniable.

i understand your point, but at the same time- it's not as if you see the approximately 1 billion muslims on earth encapsulated in those pictures. if you saw a violent reaction by 1 billion human beings, no doubt the rioting would be just a tad worse than what things are!

Bluesman
18 Sep 06,, 02:44
well, bluesman,



i understand your point, but at the same time- it's not as if you see the approximately 1 billion muslims on earth encapsulated in those pictures. if you saw a violent reaction by 1 billion human beings, no doubt the rioting would be just a tad worse than what things are!

Why is their imam not down there and hitting them over the head with a stick? Where is the counter-demonstration by all the OTHER Muslims? Who organized this motley crew in the first place, and how did it get that far without somebody down at the mosque saying, 'Why don't you tossers find something constructive to do and stop making us all look like the rolling-eyed crazies that Bluesman and that lot on the WAB think we are?'

WHY do we have to put up with this crap AT ALL? Because Islam is populated with touchy, over-sensitive, insecure cry-babies, THAT'S why, and we're all pretty dam' sick of somebody's deeply-held personal conviction that can't stand up to a novel, a cartoon, or a critique. That's how our societies work best - with FREEDOM - and if they can't hack that, then they're simply not ready for prime-time. Let 'em go back to their squalid little squats in the desert or the jungle until they can get through a tough day without having a bomb-throwing, head-hacking, suicidal/homicidal tantrum.

I'm liable to attack the very next Muslim I see that pisses ME off, and we'll see how THAT plays.:mad:

leib10
18 Sep 06,, 03:52
Well said. The Muslim mentality simply has no place in this century, mainly because of its own incapability to handle criticism with nonviolent means and its own intolerance of other religions and beliefs. When they're ready to act like grown-ups and take criticism like an adult instead of a child, then maybe there will be a place for them. Until then, every time they riot, every time they commit an act of senseless violence will only fuel the fire that's spreading across the world, and it will also prove the criticism laid at their feet. I mean, do you see Christians or Jews torching buildings, making death threats, and beheading people just because somebody happens to believe in something different than them? I don't think so. Those days are over; it's time to move forward instead of backwards with their medieval mentality and actions.

I cOmE iN PEaCE
18 Sep 06,, 04:50
Saying there are bad Muslims out there isn't even false, let alone trouble worthy.
he didnt say that.he said all are bad because the only thing new we have is warmongering according to him

there are some bad muslims even i will say that.very bad.that is different from what he said.

I cOmE iN PEaCE
18 Sep 06,, 05:02
AlpErTunga

But why must Allah wage war to punish till the people convert and pay Zakat.
the line he quoted did not say till it said IF.
if obviously they become Muslims(which means they joined your side)then you stop.but why are you assuming we should start the fighting according the quran.
according to history there was a battle where muslims were going to be under attack but since muslims were nonviolent people they were worried what would happen to them since they could not fight back.that is when this line was stated to the prophet by allah so he could make them defend themselves

Ray
18 Sep 06,, 05:47
And Ray; you are so angry about Pakistan. But I am a Turk. Is my only fault ,that you react against to, being muslim? I don't have enough info about Pakistan-India conflict, so I don't want to talk about that. But there is no jihad idea in Turkiye and 99% of Turkish population is muslim. So ?

No, I am not angry with Pakistan.

The President, General Muharraf, took over the country from the civil government. It means he had the power as one man to fight the country is needed in this bid to take over. In other words, a POWERFUL man.

Musharraf, has the POWER to fight against the Taleban and AQ. Taleban and AQ claims to be the "mujahideens" (soldiers of Allah). Therefore, Musharraf is a POWERFUL man who can fight the soldiers of Allah, whom quite a large majority of Moslems support. Therefore, Musharraf is a POWERFUL man!

Musharraf thinks the Hudood is not a good law in modern times. Therefore, Musharraf is trying to be secular and modern like Kemal Attaturk. But the MULLAHS are against this change of law.

Therefore Musharraf, a very POWERFUL man is NOT POWERFUL against the Mullahs who claim to be the "scholars" who interpret Islam! The Mullahs act like the Hindu Brahmins, the sole custodians for interpreting Religion and the sole via media between the man and his God!

That is what I am trying to state.

As far as Turkiye is concerned, in India, we are aware it is a progressive country and it was made so by the great visionary Kemal Attaturk. Kemal Attaturk is a respected and revered name in India. Children are taught the same in history classes.

More power to Turkiye and its secularism!

Ray
18 Sep 06,, 05:56
he didnt say that.he said all are bad because the only thing new we have is warmongering according to him

there are some bad muslims even i will say that.very bad.that is different from what he said.

Whatever made you feel that there would be NO bad Moslems.

Why are the Moslems washed in some Holy Water and their souls cleansed to make them some superior souls?

What you have said is so arrogant and condescending that you agree that some Moslems are bad.

Why are you folks so supercilious and naive?

I have seen comments that Islam is the only True religion. Islam equates with Truth. All this is pure bilge, jetsam and floatsam.

No one has seen God. Who invented religion? Did it arrive at the same time as protoplasm and such microrganism?

Religion was invented by man. To put the fear of the supernatural, the unexplanable into the wild barbarians and bring some societal order. That is about all!

Go pray to anything, anyone that one wants to.

But can the piety and balderdash.

Ray
18 Sep 06,, 06:00
the line he quoted did not say till it said IF.
if obviously they become Muslims(which means they joined your side)then you stop.but why are you assuming we should start the fighting according the quran. according to history there was a battle where muslims were going to be under attack but since muslims were nonviolent people they were worried what would happen to them since they could not fight back.that is when this line was stated to the prophet by allah so he could make them defend themselves

OK.

So, I got it wrong.

So Mohemet is the original "pre-emptive strike" innovator!

Great, you imagine an attack with take place and you take off!

Good show.

Then why howl that Bush has attacked Iraq! He is merely following Mohammet!

Feline
18 Sep 06,, 07:38
What is your answer that even a General, who could take over a country by force (coup) cannot change the Huddood law just because of the Mullahs! I am talking about Paksitan which claims to be a progressive Islamic country!

Well if that is the point even India claims to be a secular state but there minorities are being treated the other way.
even the fellow indians are being termed disloyal just beacuse they refused to follow Hinud fanatics.

Change in Hudood Laws in Pakistan had nothing to do with other countries.
so you dont need to worry about that.

Feline
18 Sep 06,, 08:01
The Pope is at the end of brickbats from fellow Christians, justified or otherwise.!

The supreme religious leaders are not supposed to create hatred and be biased.
The ex-Pope always preached peace and did not invove in politics.
If such leaders get themselves involve in phobias, what would be difference between a common man and a religiously learned person.



Anyway, is Jihad justified in the modern civilised world?

What is this holy cr@p of religion waging war against temporal forces!

Jihad has been misunderstood and explained by the foreigners and also some Mulsims for self-intrests.
Islam dosent say wage war against non-Muslims.
Islam allowes Jihad (Defence) when Muslims are attacked.
Its Defence and i think everyone reserve the right to defend his or herself or coumtry against attack.

I cOmE iN PEaCE
18 Sep 06,, 08:06
OK.

So, I got it wrong.

So Mohemet is the original "pre-emptive strike" innovator!

Great, you imagine an attack with take place and you take off!

Good show.

Then why howl that Bush has attacked Iraq! He is merely following Mohammet!
no not that too

quraysh sent their army and it met the muslim army the old fashioned way

quraysh had first strike anyway by attacking the homes of people in madinah.

even the battle was fought in such a way that the quraysh were allowed to come to muslims first for an attempt to attack.which failed.

Ray
18 Sep 06,, 08:22
Jesus died for our sins.

Now, why should we have a Jihad on us because of some dumb tribe called Quaryash.

I am not ready to die for the stupidity of some blokes called Quaereshis.

Isn't Jesus' dying for our sin good enough of the bloodlust that the Quereshis stupidy brought upon the world?

And why in the name of hell, must I have to become a Moslem so that I am not killed? Conversion by force and yet it is said that in Islam there is no conversion by force.

Man, you guys should see a shrink en masse if what you say is correct!

I defence go ahead and have a riot, a ball, a circus, if you want.

Why then were you advocating earlier that Islam states that there should be pre-emptive strikes! ie. go on the offensive i.e. attack?

Make up your and Islam's mind, please.

Friend, you are going in circles and beating about the bush, when in actuality you Moslem want to beat good old Bush!

You come in Peace, I want to go in Peace!

Ray
18 Sep 06,, 08:41
Well if that is the point even India claims to be a secular state but there minorities are being treated the other way.
even the fellow indians are being termed disloyal just beacuse they refused to follow Hinud fanatics.

Change in Hudood Laws in Pakistan had nothing to do with other countries.
so you dont need to worry about that.

Quite a catty chap you are, Feline.

In India, minorities are treated bad?

Really?

How about changing of the Constitution to pander to the desires of one special community?

Not secular enough for you?

Has any country in the world changed the Constitution to suit the whims of a minority community, Mr/ Ms Feline?

What would be secular for you?

An Islamic Republic of India?

I would dread that given how Pakistan treats its minorities. Please check this sub forum for reams and reams of the stuff!

Are you aware of the Sano Bano case where the Supreme Court ruled in favour of this abandoned Moslem woman.

No, that was against Islam, Sharia and every single medieval archaic and antediluvial law!

So, the Moslems of India in general and the Moslem "scholars" and "politicians" in particular started a Godforsaken wail and rant.

Hey pronto! Constitution changed.

Moslems are the Constitutional Brahmans!

Not good enough for you?

What? Want to be a God in India. Will that satisfy you?

Of course, I have to worry about Pakistan and its laws.

Soon there will be a wail, rave and rant in India amongst the Moslems to have the Huddood in India and made applicable to all religions!

And the Constitution changed to appease the Moslems - a large vote bank!

Bone up, Feline chhotey! (child)

Feline
18 Sep 06,, 08:42
Jesus died for our sins.

Now, why should we have a Jihad on us because of some dumb tribe called Quaryash.

I am not ready to die for the stupidity of some blokes called Quaereshis.


The Quresh dont asked dumb people to die they had not asked to die without reason.



And why in the name of hell, must I have to become a Moslem so that I am not killed? Conversion by force and yet it is said that in Islam there is no conversion by force.

Islam dosnt ask anyone to become Muslim without having full believe after understanding it. That is the reason Islam believes in preaching.
Sure there is no forced conversion in Islam.
EVEN Islam is not in favoure of Converting to it just for marriage.
Islam says that even if someone wants to marry any Muslim and for that reason she or he converts to it, it is not allowed, imean even in such a matter Islam says there is no compulsion on you to convert unless your mind understand it with reason.





Why then were you advocating earlier that Islam states that there should be pre-emptive strikes! ie. go on the offensive i.e. attack?


I think his English is not that good and he failed to make you understand what he wants to say :)

Ray
18 Sep 06,, 08:48
Are you Feline or are you Grimms Brothers, Hans Christien Andersen or Enid Blyton?

Who are you kidding?

You speak of India with a lot of authority.

How come India has so many Moslems?

And when did India attack Arabia or any Moslem country when the marauders of Islam made a visitation and looted and plundered.

Remember your ancestors Ghaznavi (Ghazni) and that bloke Ghauri?

Feline
18 Sep 06,, 09:18
Are you Feline or are you Grimms Brothers, Hans Christien Andersen or Enid Blyton??

:rolleyes: are you frustrated by my remarks??




You speak of India with a lot of authority.

How come India has so many Moslems?

And when did India attack Arabia or any Moslem country when the marauders of Islam made a visitation and looted and plundered.


Did you miss something ??/ where did i speak of India on this thread ??/

Ray
18 Sep 06,, 09:47
:rolleyes: are you frustrated by my remarks??


Not frustrated actually.

Aghast at the logic.

That is about all.



Did you miss something ??/ where did i speak of India on this thread ??/


I presume this is your post :


[QUOTE]Well if that is the point even India claims to be a secular state but there minorities are being treated the other way.
even the fellow indians are being termed disloyal just beacuse they refused to follow Hinud fanatics.

Change in Hudood Laws in Pakistan had nothing to do with other countries.
so you dont need to worry about that.

Now what's that?

Talking about Oceania or Patagonia?

Chum, you forget too fast.

Suffering from amnesia?

AlpErTunga
18 Sep 06,, 10:22
Brothers, I want to sum up my opinion and I will leave forum for a few months.

I think the biggest mistake of humanity in our time is that; "generalization".

We, Turks, accepted Islam as our religion during 8-9th centuries. Since that the greatest Muslim commanders, scientists, alims, poets, statemen -who made Bagdad, Riyad, Horasan, Konya, Damascus cultural and politic capitals of world during medieval age whil European Civ. was in Darkness- were Turks... Turks (Seljuk Turks) saved Islam from crusades many times; Salaadin Eyyubi was also a Turk. Then Turks(Ottoman Turks) destroyed the Islam Empire and caliphate became a title of Ottoman dynasty. Then Turks (Turks of Modern Turkiye) abolished caliphate and announced secularism in 1924. In other words; Turks leaded Muslim World. And today, Muslim World needs to be leaded by Turks and accept Islam as a "religion" not as a worldly value.

World have to abolish all politic titles of religions, priests and imams. i.e. mullah, sheikh, ayetollah, pope....

Also thanks for your awareness about Turkiye.

smilingassassin
18 Sep 06,, 10:41
World have to abolish all politic titles of religions, priests and imams. i.e. mullah, sheikh, ayetollah, pope....

Also thanks for your awareness about Turkiye.

In this we can agree, religion needs to be completely separated from state affairs. It should be a moral guide not a tool to use as a rallying cry to shed blood. We need more Mustafa Kemal Ataturks in the ME as well.

Ray
18 Sep 06,, 10:44
Why should Turks lead the Islamic world?

Why not the Ayatollahs?

Whats wrong with having titles for the religious heads?

If Islam does not use religion at the drop of a hat to justify political acts, then maybe the Pope would not have to say what he said!

QED.

Best of luck for your sabbatical!

Repatriated Canuck
18 Sep 06,, 13:33
The Old Crusader habits die hard.

The same strains of bigotry, double standards and moral relativism we see generally in the West so clearly examplified by Bush and Blair run in the veins of this Pope.

He calls for Islamic leaders to 'take responsibility for their communities and teach their young to abhor violence' - will Christian leaders take responsibility for Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and the massacre of 250,000 Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq and the subsequent slaughter in Lebanon? What of the on-going slaughter in the Gaza?

Or are 'Chistians' graded on a 'different' scale? Is it alright for Christians to invade muslim lands and FORCE secularism (and Bush-Blair 'Bombed' Again Secular-Christianity) upon us and yet it is forbidden (violence/terrorism) for us to defend our people and lands?

He quotes from a Christian commentary of a Christian king and would not even quote the reply given by the 'Persian' scholar. Would he read the Islamic commentary on the same event? He calls for 'REASON' and yet cannot defend his faith by even bringing a balanced discussion?

Could he not 'reason' that IF Christians or Jews were 'forced' to convert to Islam, would there be Coptic Christians in Egypt? Or Croat or Serb Christians in the Balkans? Or Jews in Turkey and North Africa and even As Shams?

He is mistaken.

FORCED conversions is the speciality of the Christians. As happened to the Muslims and Jews of Al Andalus, during the protracted and Vatican sanctioned Spanish Inquisition - no doubt a moment of great quiet pride for Christiandom. :rolleyes:



Guantanamo Bay has a few hundred men who where caught in a warzone with an AK in their hands and are exactly where they belong and a court proceeding that some are about to get will vindicate Guantanamo.

The arguement made was that Islam is still locked into the 1300's and for you to make a rebuttle using the Spanish Inquisition is laughable at best.

Please give me one example of the Catholic Church going on Crusade or a Christian Jihaad in the last 100 years mate. I can give you countless examples of Muslim people going on Jihaad in this last month killing and murdering with no regard for fellow muslims. This behavior is disgusting and I have no idea how anyone can justify it at all.

Repatriated Canuck
18 Sep 06,, 13:38
Maybe they DID die hard, but dead they are.



Don't really see 'em as clearly as you seem to, in ANY of the above-named individuals.



I believe that if you were passingly familiar with the things you cite you'd find that Abu G DID see people held responsible, Guantanamo is not the horror show you'd like to think it is, and your figure of a quarter-million dead Muslims at Western hands is completely hysterical mad raving CRAP. And if you'd care to define the term 'slaughter' so that it could encompass what the Israelis are forced to do to defend herself against Muslims creeps that murder children and women ON PURPOSE, I'd be interested to see just how you're able to twist a word that is so plain in meaning into something so fraught with your fevered imagination.

So, NO, maybe you'd like to aquaint yourself with some facts before you start in with YOUR moral relativism that you seem to believe absolves Muslims from the dreadfulness propagated (and in your case, excused) by the adherants of a religious doctrine that seems to be easily persuaded to become bestial and hateful toward anything it considers different. You know, like ALL bigotry does, when carried to the extreme.



Same scale, and it's called 'Humanity', something I believe you won't get too many adequate examples of from the more newsworthy Muslims. Defend yourselves all you feel you need to, but may I expect you to refrain from flying aircraft (OUR aircraft) into office buildings full of innocent people? That's not 'defensive', chief; it's deeply OFFENSIVE, in every sense of the word.

You should be banned for even suggesting that terrorists have a point, that it's legitimate for them to 'defend' your people and lands by the ways that they have chosen.

What the hell is wrong with your crappy religion that this is seen as somehow acceptable, is in somway justified?

Anyway, carrying on:



Oh, but YOU do such a great job, right? Listen, I'm not a Christian, and I believe the Pope is faithful to a fairy tale just like you are, but the huge difference, you see, is he would instantly be repulsed by what you see as a legitimate act of 'defense'. He would NEVER, EVER attempt to rationalize what a Muslim lauds as heroic and correct.

He's right; ayatollahs, imams, muftis, and the various frauds and hucksters that lead your version of an unreal fantasy-world of make-believe are DANGEROUS. Christians for the most part aren't, and the ones that are, are not so primarily BECAUSE they're Christians, but rather in spite of it.



And Copts are daily oppressed, marginalized, and persecuted as OFFICIAL POLICY. And we all see how well the Balkans have been working out down through the centuries since Islam came with fire and sword to establish itself by force, haven't we?

You want to see where the religions live best side-by-side? Find a democracy. Not some ramshackle Middle East dictatorship mis-ruled by Muslim despots and thugs, but a Westernized and forward-looking modern nation, such as Ataturk made from the 'sick man of Europe', mired in a retrograde and benighted coil of misery that was absolutely corrupt and thoroughly Muslim, until he FORCED it to be secular, and drug it forward into the light. THAT is why there are Jews in Turkey, with their synagogues and prosperity, but in no other part of the Muslim World, with its devotion to a mad pedophile 'prophet'.



He ain't.



WERE. WERE the specialty of the Christians. Hasn't happened in awhile, if you'd care to read along in your backward-regarding history of the glories of Islam and the horrors of Christianity. If you could but GET OVER the things that haven't been happening in our world since you were born and would stop feeling humilation about something that never happened to you, MAYBE we could stop your brethren from beheading any more Crusaders that have never even been to Antioch, you friggin' maniac.



You gonna seethe and whine about that, and hope somebody here meets your expectation of defending something, that, while admittedly indefensible, WE DID NOT DO?

You're a crybaby, a nutcase, a VERY worthy representative of your revolting kind of chauvanism and ignorance, the Modern-Day* Muslim. You are well-suited to your faith, and that's no compliment.

May your god go with you. SOON.







*'Modern' in the sense that you're my contemporary, but distinctly Medieval in your outlook.



CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP
CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP
CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP
CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP


Bravo, I read this after my reply to that load.

Repatriated Canuck
18 Sep 06,, 13:50
Its not surprising that someone from Amsterdam would fear the pope. Christianity sees that city as the sin capital of the world with postitution and drug shoot up clinics everywhere.

.

Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada has more prostitutes and crack heads than Amsterdam by a very, very big margin.


East Hastings, we have 'safe injection sites' where a heroin junkie can get a nice shiny new and clean needle. At least here in Amsterdam the hookers aren't 17 year old run aways as often nor do you see junkie hookers as why would you nail a junkie when for the same 50 Euro you can nail a hot woman that is so far out of your league it's not even funny?

Bad example there mate and until you see for yourself you shouldn't generalize in this way.


Edit/// Hey you're from Vancouver so you know full on how bad Hastings is. I've not seen anything like Hastings in any of the countries I've been too. Oh and I grew up in Surrey so I know what bad is.

Ray
18 Sep 06,, 13:53
Irrespective of what the Pope may have said or may not have said, war as a concept is incorrect and is immoral and is against rational thought and humanity.

Unfortunately, the reality is that there are wars between Nations since Man is not perfect and one wishes to dominate over the other and as a group wants to dominate another. It is for self benefit and group benefit, even if it is at the expense of another.

However, Religion is for spreading Peace, Tranquillity and Harmony. It is sublime and placid. Thus, there cannot be any incongruity to these aspects and war is an incongruity.

Therefore, War and Religion are poles apart.

Hence, the concept of Jihad, it totally out of synchromesh with the concept of God and Religion. God and Religion is said to be calm and benevolent.

Islam however is an interesting phenomenon which has strife as one of its bottomline. Not struggle per se, but domination and aggression as it credo.

Thus, Islam cannot be reconciled by those who have Peace and Sublimity as what they have been taught as what God and Religion should be.

Repatriated Canuck
18 Sep 06,, 14:15
By the way, that was a demonstration by about a hundre3d Islamic fanatics outside Westminster Cathedral today.

Here's a man that attended church there today:

Hey at least they picked a Catholic Church but then isn't the UK mostly Protestant and told the Pope to piss off ages ago?. :rolleyes:

Ray
18 Sep 06,, 15:35
Anglican.

There is an interesting history of why the Church of England came into being.

The Church of England considers itself to stand both in a reformed tradition and in a catholic (but not Roman Catholic) church tradition: Reformed insofar as many of the principles of the early protestants as well as the subsequent Protestant Reformation have influenced it, and insofar as it does not accept Papal authority; catholic, in that it views itself as the 'unbroken continuation of the early apostolic and later medieval' "universal church", rather than as a 'new formation'. In both beliefs and practices, or forms of churchmanship, the Church of England is mixed: in some of its congregations worship remains closer to Roman Catholicism (see High Church) than most Protestant churches, but in others it is difficult to distinguish between the Anglican forms in use and the uses of other Evangelical bodies (see Low Church). Its constitution affirms many relatively conservative theological beliefs, its liturgical form of worship is traditional, and its organisation embodies a belief in the appropriateness of the historical episcopal hierarchy of archbishops, bishops, and dioceses.

In many people's eyes the Church of England has as its primary distinguishing heritage its breadth and "open-mindedness". Today, beliefs and practices range from those of the Anglo-Catholics, who emphasise liturgy and sacraments, to the far more preaching-centred and less ritual based services of Evangelicals and the high-octane gatherings of the Charismatics. But this "broad church" faces various contentious doctrinal questions raised by the development of modern society, such as conflicts over the ordination of women as priests (accepted in 1992 and begun in 1994), and the status of non-celibate homosexual clergy (still unsettled today). In July 2005 the divisions were once again apparent, as the General Synod voted to "set in train" the process of allowing the consecration of women as bishops; in February 2006 the Synod voted overwhelmingly for "further exploration" of a scheme that would also allow parishes that did not want a woman bishop to opt for a man instead.

Ray
18 Sep 06,, 15:38
Oh yes, I forgot about your statement that the Church of England told the Pope to "piss off".

Actually, I would not think Pope was told to "piss off'. It was more of a historical evolution as also Henry VII wanting to have a merry time.

England adhered to the Roman Catholic church for nearly a thousand years, before the church separated from Rome in 1534, during the reign of King Henry VIII. A theological separation had been foreshadowed by various movements within the English church such as the Lollards, but the English Reformation gained political support when Henry VIII wanted his marriage to Catherine of Aragon annulled. Under pressure from Catherine's nephew Emperor Charles V of Spain, Pope Clement VII refused the annulment and eventually Henry, although theologically a Catholic, decided to become Supreme Head of the Church of England to ensure the annulment of his marriage.

Henry maintained a strong preference for the traditional Catholic practices and, during his reign, Protestant reformers were unable to make many changes to the practices of the Church of England. Under his son, Edward VI, the church became theologically more radical, before rejoining the Roman church during the reign of Queen Mary I, in 1555. The settlement under Elizabeth I (from 1558) of a mildly protestant, catholic, apostolic, and established church (i.e. subject to and part of the state) that accommodates a wide range of theological positions has essentially been its character since.


That I think should take care of your pissing off theory! ;)

Repatriated Canuck
18 Sep 06,, 16:08
Oh yes, I forgot about your statement that the Church of England told the Pope to "piss off".

Actually, I would not think Pope was told to "piss off'. It was more of a historical evolution as also Henry VII wanting to have a merry time.

England adhered to the Roman Catholic church for nearly a thousand years, before the church separated from Rome in 1534, during the reign of King Henry VIII. A theological separation had been foreshadowed by various movements within the English church such as the Lollards, but the English Reformation gained political support when Henry VIII wanted his marriage to Catherine of Aragon annulled. Under pressure from Catherine's nephew Emperor Charles V of Spain, Pope Clement VII refused the annulment and eventually Henry, although theologically a Catholic, decided to become Supreme Head of the Church of England to ensure the annulment of his marriage.

Henry maintained a strong preference for the traditional Catholic practices and, during his reign, Protestant reformers were unable to make many changes to the practices of the Church of England. Under his son, Edward VI, the church became theologically more radical, before rejoining the Roman church during the reign of Queen Mary I, in 1555. The settlement under Elizabeth I (from 1558) of a mildly protestant, catholic, apostolic, and established church (i.e. subject to and part of the state) that accommodates a wide range of theological positions has essentially been its character since.


That I think should take care of your pissing off theory! ;)

I can also think of off the top of my head how Mary Queen of Scots was Catholic and how it was the perfect excuse for her downfall. She had to practice in privacy and there where many violent occurances due to her Catholic faith. This would seem to me what with her eventual execusion that indeed England told the Pope to "piss off".


EDIT//// Henry the VIII is a bad example as he was telling the Pope to piss off as well as he wouldn't let him divorce once or twice. He was not a very pious King.

Samudra
18 Sep 06,, 17:04
I just love the irony of the entire story: Pope criticizes Islam's violence, and Islam reacts violently to it.

So the Pop ole'fellow has infact scored a victory?

I was travelling for the last few days so I could'nt catch up with the news. To those who are following the events: How violent was the 'reaction' to
Pope's comment?

Neo
18 Sep 06,, 17:14
I'll take my chances until it can be proven that he was NOT a pedophile as set down in scripture, and as long as we get the rank Popephobia from a Muslim's post, I don't really see how it can be justified as 'libel'. Neo getting a yellow card, too?


Done, The Pope is a religous figure after all.
There goes my freedom of speech! :rolleyes:

dalem
18 Sep 06,, 17:56
So the Pop ole'fellow has infact scored a victory?

I was travelling for the last few days so I could'nt catch up with the news. To those who are following the events: How violent was the 'reaction' to
Pope's comment?

The usual Muslim schtick - lots of public threats, some churches burned and bombed, some people hurt, a nun murdered.

Typical.

-dale

I cOmE iN PEaCE
18 Sep 06,, 18:11
Jesus died for our sins.

Now, why should we have a Jihad on us because of some dumb tribe called Quaryash.

I am not ready to die for the stupidity of some blokes called Quaereshis.

Isn't Jesus' dying for our sin good enough of the bloodlust that the Quereshis stupidy brought upon the world?

And why in the name of hell, must I have to become a Moslem so that I am not killed? Conversion by force and yet it is said that in Islam there is no conversion by force.

Man, you guys should see a shrink en masse if what you say is correct!

I defence go ahead and have a riot, a ball, a circus, if you want.

Why then were you advocating earlier that Islam states that there should be pre-emptive strikes! ie. go on the offensive i.e. attack?

Make up your and Islam's mind, please.

Friend, you are going in circles and beating about the bush, when in actuality you Moslem want to beat good old Bush!

You come in Peace, I want to go in Peace!
thought it would be obvious.
since thats when in quraysh's attack it was in selfdefence,this line is also for selfdefence.
the rest you have put words in my mouth.nobody thinks like that,that we must force someone to be muslim or kill them.

Ray
18 Sep 06,, 18:19
s off".


EDIT//// Henry the VIII is a bad example as he was telling the Pope to piss off as well as he wouldn't let him divorce once or twice. He was not a very pious King.


Heavens! Pious?!

The bloke wanted to better the Islamic injunction of four wives!

He was plain horny and wanted to use religion to condone his horniness!:eek:

Lunatock
18 Sep 06,, 18:21
There goes my freedom of speech! :rolleyes:

You are no more immune to infraction points, rule violations, and what not than Semper Fi and Bluesman. So wah wah wah all the way home.

Ray
18 Sep 06,, 18:24
thought it would be obvious.
since thats when in quraysh's attack it was in selfdefence,this line is also for selfdefence.
the rest you have put words in my mouth.nobody thinks like that,that we must force someone to be muslim or kill them.


OK I accept that the Queresis attacked in self defence.

But Jihad is to kill and convert or force chaps to pay jezia.

Just explain Jezia and you will know what I mean!

Look you are a nice chap and I hate to go into a debate with you.

I know you are the type of Moslem who should inhabit the earth, but then what about the countless other Moslems who are baying for everyone's blood in the name of Jihad?

Ray
18 Sep 06,, 18:25
There goes my freedom of speech! :rolleyes:

Go ahead.

We are just dying to hear from you.

I cOmE iN PEaCE
18 Sep 06,, 18:30
OK I accept that the Queresis attacked in self defence.

But Jihad is to kill and convert or force chaps to pay jezia.

Just explain Jezia and you will know what I mean!

Look you are a nice chap and I hate to go into a debate with you.

I know you are the type of Moslem who should inhabit the earth, but then what about the countless other Moslems who are baying for everyone's blood in the name of Jihad?
wrong again from what i said

quresh attacked and we were defending.
jihad is not to kill its to better yourself.fighting ur urge to lie is jihad and to stop theft is jihad.

how can i convert people putting a gun to their head?

the wrong muslims who do such things are hiding in the caves and are not common people

smilingassassin
18 Sep 06,, 19:09
Soooooo just how many times does the Pope need to appologize before these wackjobs stop crying us a river?

Lunatock
18 Sep 06,, 19:11
Heavens! Pious?!

The bloke wanted to better the Islamic injunction of four wives!

He was plain horny and wanted to use religion to condone his horniness!:eek:

Psst! Hey Neo! Ray was talking about Henry The Eight..sooo not a religious figure mental giant!

p.s. I think I might soon be afflicted with a mental condition known as Bluesman's syndrome, and start repeatedly talking about The Pope & Mohammed...Mohammed & The Pope.

I cOmE iN PEaCE
18 Sep 06,, 19:14
Soooooo just how many times does the Pope need to appologize before these wackjobs stop crying us a river?

where is the apology?

Bluesman
18 Sep 06,, 19:31
Psst! Hey Neo! Ray was talking about Henry The Eight..sooo not a religious figure mental giant!

p.s. I think I might soon be afflicted with a mental condition known as Bluesman's syndrome, and start repeatedly talking about The Pope & Mohammed...Mohammed & The Pope.

I self-medicate for the condition...

astralis
18 Sep 06,, 23:26
bluesman,


Why is their imam not down there and hitting them over the head with a stick? Where is the counter-demonstration by all the OTHER Muslims? Who organized this motley crew in the first place, and how did it get that far without somebody down at the mosque saying, 'Why don't you tossers find something constructive to do and stop making us all look like the rolling-eyed crazies that Bluesman and that lot on the WAB think we are?'

WHY do we have to put up with this crap AT ALL? Because Islam is populated with touchy, over-sensitive, insecure cry-babies, THAT'S why, and we're all pretty dam' sick of somebody's deeply-held personal conviction that can't stand up to a novel, a cartoon, or a critique. That's how our societies work best - with FREEDOM - and if they can't hack that, then they're simply not ready for prime-time. Let 'em go back to their squalid little squats in the desert or the jungle until they can get through a tough day without having a bomb-throwing, head-hacking, suicidal/homicidal tantrum.

I'm liable to attack the very next Muslim I see that pisses ME off, and we'll see how THAT plays.

well, as a rule, in societies where tyrannies, oil oligarchies, and theocrats reign, moderation generally isn't a strong-point. correct me if i'm wrong, but i think it's interesting, that while we see protests in turkey, we don't see fire-bombing and murder. we don't see this with islamic communities with the US, too. but hey, i'm not really disagreeing with you- i do believe the islamic world is in serious need of reform, and that this incident shows this need more than ever (as if we needed more examples).

by the way, allow me to recommend an EXCELLENT book to all of you, by james bowman.

http://www.amazon.com/Honor-A-History-James-Bowman/dp/1594031428

he argues that the reason why we see something we perceive today as "immaturity" with the islamic world is that because for many of these people in these societies, they hold differing conceptions of "honor" than we generally do in the west.

he argues that the enlightenment, rule of law, and changing perceptions of justice have led us into a "post-honor" society, whereas much of the islamic world has yet to move out.

he criticizes the "honor" society of the islamic world, noting that it was similar to what the west had pre-enlightenment era, an era where duels were not outlawed but instead seen as the right thing to do. here is an argument that helps explain this type of behavior outside of plain "evil religion" lines.

at the same time, he criticizes the excesses of our own post-honor society, arguing that while freeing ourselves from the dictates of honor is a source of our strength, we are moving too far in the opposite direction. that leads to moral equivalency ("all wars are evil", "there is no difference between bush and hitler") and a sense of victim-worship.

Jay
19 Sep 06,, 00:38
jihad is not to kill its to better yourself.fighting ur urge to lie is jihad and to stop theft is jihad.
So you better yourself by killing others? Countless infidels have been killed so far by calling jihad, i dont see any "betterment" of muslims.

how can i convert people putting a gun to their head?
Just to give you an example, you should read about the Moghuls and Khilji dynasty in India.
I'll put a gun to your head, you have one choice renounce islam or die. Most often people choose the first option.

the wrong muslims who do such things are hiding in the caves and are not common people
Who are they? What have the main stream muslims done to prevent them from degrading your God's name? Nada.

Ray
19 Sep 06,, 04:46
wrong again from what i said

quresh attacked and we were defending.
jihad is not to kill its to better yourself.fighting ur urge to lie is jihad and to stop theft is jihad.

how can i convert people putting a gun to their head?

the wrong muslims who do such things are hiding in the caves and are not common people

Jihad is of two types.

You are talking about the Jihad to self cleanse.

Why are you conveniently avoiding the other aspect of Jihad? Do tell us about that too!

Ask the two Journalists who were kept captive in Gaza as to how they converted to Islam. Were they enamoured by the verse of the Koran or petrified by the gun

Come on, Peace pipe, we are not children, nor are we suffering from an acute dose of amnesia. We also read newspapers and see the TV news and commentaries and the Supernatural has not forgotten to put the usual quota of grey matter he shoves in.

What's this about Caves? Mohammed saw enlightenment in a Cave. Are you talking about that?

Ray
19 Sep 06,, 04:52
well, as a rule, in societies where tyrannies, oil oligarchies, and theocrats reign, moderation generally isn't a strong-point. correct me if i'm wrong, but i think it's interesting, that while we see protests in turkey, we don't see fire-bombing and murder. we don't see this with islamic communities with the US, too. but hey, i'm not really disagreeing with you- i do believe the islamic world is in serious need of reform, and that this incident shows this need more than ever (as if we needed more examples).

Turkey is a sane country compared to the Arabs.

It still has the hangover thankfully of the Kemal Attaturk days.

One has to read history to realise what Turkey was before the days of Kemal Attaturk.

Kemal Attaturk brought Turkey out of the medieval timefreeze that Islam is known for.

Confed999
19 Sep 06,, 05:22
where is the apology?

The transcripts are in Italian. He apologized for the Crusades, the Inqusition, and pretty much everything bad the Catholic church has been involved with since it's beginnings...

smilingassassin
19 Sep 06,, 06:38
where is the apology?

Why apologize because the Muslims got the message wrong? Oh thats right......WE are prevoking the holy war.....

Wooglin
19 Sep 06,, 17:15
where is the apology?

There was no apology. He was sorry for the way the statements were taken (with violence, imagine that...) but did not retract them, nor should he. Why do you think he should?

leib10
19 Sep 06,, 17:16
Somebody has to stand up for the truth, and if Muslims can't handle the truth that they themselves created that's just too damn bad. Kudos to the Pope for making a stand.

Ray
19 Sep 06,, 17:22
Is Islam apologising about the Jihad being carried out by terrorists?

All we here is that these chaps are un-Islamic.

And Come in Peace, you convenient hide the full issue of Jihad to suit your convenience and have the temerity to ask for an apology.

Remember, Jesus Loves You.

Dreadnought
19 Sep 06,, 17:42
You know i'm a bit tired of being called Infidel,Zionist etc etc. If these people cant take the truth then phuck them and that's all . All they know is murder and chaos and their "religion" is the unquestionable one. The Pope need not apoligize more then he already has. Maybe if they policed their own idiots and Imams instead of making the world at large do it then there wont be any misconception at all. And since the Pope has already apoligized for the way his sermin was viewed tough **** thats all you get. Your Imams can say whatever they want but when the top of Chrisitanity takes a reading into the open and disproves by outside view some beliefs they hold from their own books now its time to riot,threaten destroy and kill? I say phuck em, build a bridge and get over it period.:mad: And while your at it grow up your religion by no means is the unquestionable one BY FAR!:eek:

Ray
19 Sep 06,, 17:46
Deradnought,

Are you a Bengali?

They can't pronounce 'f" in the word you used. They also say "Phuck". :)

Dreadnought
19 Sep 06,, 17:50
Deradnought,

Are you a Bengali?

They can't pronounce 'f" in the word you used. They also say "Phuck". :)

Sir, Just used a slang so asto make it clear.;)

Archer
20 Sep 06,, 18:30
The kind of Islam that Islam needs to become, the type that is practised by a few like APJ Abdul Kalam

www.presidentofindia.nic.in

The kind of Islam that is more widely practised? The Islam of the Tablighi Jamaat, the Islam of the Sunni Deoband, the Islam of the Salafi/ Wahhabis, the Islam that the PDF crowd adhere to, the Islam of our neighbours that believes in superiority through violence.

That Islam is simply, asking for a fight with everyone, but when the fight is delivered to its doorstep, it rages about the Pope or the Crusaders or the Polytheists but will NEVER, EVER admit to its own mistakes.

Thats cruisin' for a hurtin'.

Ray
20 Sep 06,, 20:25
Yes, APJ Abdul Kalam is what a pious Moslem should be like.

He commands the respect of every single Indian in and out of the country!

A Great Leader and a great human being!

PubFather
20 Sep 06,, 20:52
That Islam is simply, asking for a fight with everyone, but when the fight is delivered to its doorstep, it rages about the Pope or the Crusaders or the Polytheists but will NEVER, EVER admit to its own mistakes.
This is what frustrates me with the Muslim community in the UK. They are their own worst enemy when it comes to blaming - for example - Western foreign policy, or heavy-handed policing for radicalisation. It's never the Muslim community that is responsible for making sure radical clerics dont hijack mosques... Before the current run of events, the roots of extremism were being well-laid in the UK and by who? People like al-Bakhri who were sheltering from Muslim governments....

Who did we arm against the Soviets? Who did we help in Kosovo? Yeah, we've made some unpopular (and incorrect) foreign policy calls in the past but they pick and chose what to remember... and ignore the fact that they have rights in our country which we would not have in the vast majority of Muslim nations...

Ray
20 Sep 06,, 20:56
And we in India marvelled at the lack of British foresight, which was legendary in the yesteryear!

Too much of curry has gone into the British brain! ;)

The British brain is burning! :)

Or have the parish meets increased and Christian compassion has oozed through all pores for the poor Moslems unfairly being targeted the world over, starting from that unholy and unIslamic war started by Bush! :shock:

Wooglin
20 Sep 06,, 21:49
This is what frustrates me with the Muslim community in the UK. They are their own worst enemy when it comes to blaming - for example - Western foreign policy, or heavy-handed policing for radicalisation. It's never the Muslim community that is responsible for making sure radical clerics dont hijack mosques... Before the current run of events, the roots of extremism were being well-laid in the UK and by who? People like al-Bakhri who were sheltering from Muslim governments....

Who did we arm against the Soviets? Who did we help in Kosovo? Yeah, we've made some unpopular (and incorrect) foreign policy calls in the past but they pick and chose what to remember... and ignore the fact that they have rights in our country which we would not have in the vast majority of Muslim nations...

Especially after 7/7 and the subsequent bombing attempt by homegrown terrorists there must have been alot of discussion regarding immigration and multiculturalism in the UK. What's the general attitude these days from a typical British citizen?

PubFather
20 Sep 06,, 21:59
Especially after 7/7 and the subsequent bombing attempt by homegrown terrorists there must have been alot of discussion regarding immigration and multiculturalism in the UK. What's the general attitude these days from a typical British citizen?
Good question and I dont know if qualify as "typical" or not. There is a lot of anger from some - similar to how Americans feel. There is also a feeling from some(wrongly or at least misjudged) that the reaction from Muslims is purely down to the war in Iraq. This leads to belief that if we were to disengage from Iraq etc, the threat would dissappear...

I do think there is a hardening of attitude to Muslims and immigrants, especially with the overreaction to any policing activity or any criticism of Islam. It has called into question multiculturalism without a doubt and a very real fear that Muslims will never integrate into "British" society, whatever that might be.

The political parties do tend to follow the same line, and I do feel the debate is stifled by excessive "political correctness".

PubFather
20 Sep 06,, 22:00
And we in India marvelled at the lack of British foresight, which was legendary in the yesteryear!

Too much of curry has gone into the British brain! ;)

The British brain is burning! :)

Or have the parish meets increased and Christian compassion has oozed through all pores for the poor Moslems unfairly being targeted the world over, starting from that unholy and unIslamic war started by Bush! :shock:
Curry envigorates the brain!!

Not too many parish meeting nowadays - those days have been long gone for most Brit for the past 60 years ago, except in the fantasies of "little Englanders".

Ray
20 Sep 06,, 22:21
Not too many parish meeting nowadays - those days have been long gone for most Brit for the past 60 years ago, except in the fantasies of "little Englanders".

Heathens!:eek: :tongue: :biggrin:

I cOmE iN PEaCE
20 Sep 06,, 22:33
Come on, Peace pipe, we are not children, nor are we suffering from an acute dose of amnesia. We also read newspapers and see the TV news and commentaries and the Supernatural has not forgotten to put the usual quota of grey matter he shoves in.
if i put gun on ur head to say u r muslim then u will live life like a muslim?

can any jihad make u live life like a muslim?1st jihad can make u muslim maybe by seeing a good example.putting gun to ur head wont work.

the other jihad is not to make new muslims it is to fight in selfdefense.terroriss do not do jihad they do terror.u cant compare just because they say it is jihad.

leib10
20 Sep 06,, 23:57
So I suppose 9/11 was in "self defense". If so, there were a lot of people across the Muslim world on the streets celebrating the event. That's a lot of people who believe in your "self defense".

gunnut
20 Sep 06,, 23:58
So I suppose 9/11 was in "self defense". If so, there were a lot of people across the Muslim world on the streets celebrating the event. That's a lot of people who believe in your "self defense".

There were a lot of people celebrating 9/11 in our college campuses too. And they weren't muslims.

leib10
21 Sep 06,, 00:05
Makes you think, doesn't it... :mad: :frown:

Hari_Om
21 Sep 06,, 05:40
From the individual who “ absolutely responsibly” cut a peace deal with terrorists and “absolutely responsibly” did not repeal laws that deny Pakistani women the right not to be punished for being victims of rape :rolleyes: :


Pakistani leader says Pope was "absolutely irresponsible" (http://rawstory.com/news/2006/Pakistani_leader_says_Pope_was_abso_09202006.html)

Deutsche Presse Agentur
Published: Wednesday September 20, 2006

New York- Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf said on Wednesday Pope Benedict XVI's statement about Islam was "absolutely irresponsible" and called on the pontiff to apologize for what he said. "He needs to apologize for what he said, not for the turmoil that was caused by what he said," Musharraf told a news conference at UN headquarters when asked for his reaction on the controversy.

During a visit to his native Germany last week, the Pope cited a 14th century emperor who called Islam "evil and inhuman." The remark triggered strong protests from some Muslim groups and Islamic governments.

The pope has expressed regret for the reactions to his statement, but has not directly apologized.

"Nobody has the right to hurt anybody's faith, I believe," Musharraf said. "Even if you believe something to be true ... you don't have to speak to hurt 1.5 billion (Muslim) people around the world."

BenRoethig
21 Sep 06,, 13:34
Hey at least they picked a Catholic Church but then isn't the UK mostly Protestant and told the Pope to piss off ages ago?. :rolleyes:

Yeah, even the Brits make mistakes.

Bill
21 Sep 06,, 14:09
There were a lot of people celebrating 9/11 in our college campuses too. And they weren't muslims.
They were smart enough not to do it in front of me.

Dreadnought
21 Sep 06,, 14:11
They were smart enough not to do it in front of me.

Yeah I heard that! DONT WISH ILL ON MY COUNTRY ESPECIALLY WHILE YOUR LIVING IN IT AND WITHIN MY REACH!:mad:

Wooglin
21 Sep 06,, 14:40
Good question and I dont know if qualify as "typical" or not.

Perhaps a poor choice of words. I should have said "the general populace."


I do think there is a hardening of attitude to Muslims and immigrants, especially with the overreaction to any policing activity or any criticism of Islam. It has called into question multiculturalism without a doubt and a very real fear that Muslims will never integrate into "British" society, whatever that might be.

What proposals, if any, have been made to remedy this? Do people feel integration is necessary? It concerns me more than a little that they were 2nd generation(?) British citizens.

Wooglin
21 Sep 06,, 14:44
There were a lot of people celebrating 9/11 in our college campuses too. And they weren't muslims.

I think Hypocrisy is now a college major. The only prequisite course is Ignorance 101.

Samudra
21 Sep 06,, 14:45
There were a lot of people celebrating 9/11 in our college campuses too. And they weren't muslims.

:eek:
Who were they? Leftists ?

Kansas Bear
21 Sep 06,, 15:44
I think the biggest mistake of humanity in our time is that; "generalization".

Remind yourself of that failing.


Since that the greatest Muslim commanders, scientists, alims, poets, statemen -who made Bagdad, Riyad, Horasan, Konya, Damascus cultural and politic capitals of world

Ethnocentrism at it's best......




during medieval age whil European Civ. was in Darkness- were Turks... Turks (Seljuk Turks) saved Islam from crusades

The European civilization was in DARKNESS due to continued attacks from Muslims!! Iberian peninsula invaded! France and numerous cities invaded and ransacked. Churches and cities in Italy invaded and ransacked.

I wonder why European civilization was having problems??? :rolleyes:




Also thanks for your awareness about Turkiye.

That committed the 1st genocide of the 20th century.

PubFather
21 Sep 06,, 16:35
Perhaps a poor choice of words. I should have said "the general populace."



What proposals, if any, have been made to remedy this? Do people feel integration is necessary? It concerns me more than a little that they were 2nd generation(?) British citizens.
Concrete proposals are thin on the ground. There has been recent pressure to ask Muslim parents to keep an eye on their kids, to make sure they were not being radicalised/brainwashed... a responsibility that they dont agree with
Debate is stifled beyond that, years of political correctness make it difficult.

I suspect the media and the politicians are not being more critical of Islam to prevent a backlash against them from the rest of society. If there is another major attack (which seems inevitable) then I doubt this consensus will last. And the Muslims will feel even more victimised, and more likely to be radical... :frown:


The Muslim community keep insisting that current British foreign policy is the only problem... :rolleyes:

It the lack of integration that is the biggest problem for Muslims but I dont believe many of the "elders" really want to integrate. Most British people (I believe) would love to see Muslims properly integrated into society.

Muslim young people very often want to integrate and love much about western culture with its freedoms. The elders, imho, are terrified of this because this would be the death knell of traditional Islam in this country. So it will always suit Muslim leaders to feel like a "victimised" minority that crowds together into self-made enclaves in certain cities. This increases the likelyhood that the young will stay within the "family". Its also easier to blame racism in Britain for the economic failure of many Muslims, rather than accept responsibility for this as well.

What doesnt help is the number of Pakistani Muslims (when they are young) who are sent back to Pakistan for a religious education, to live in the ancestral village, and more often than not come back with a Pakistani husband or wife who doesnt speak English.

Bill
21 Sep 06,, 17:12
Concrete proposals are thin on the ground. There has been recent pressure to ask Muslim parents to keep an eye on their kids, to make sure they were not being radicalised/brainwashed... a responsibility that they dont agree with
Debate is stifled beyond that, years of political correctness make it difficult.
Then civil warfare or a silent dissappearance of freedom into the night time British sky is unavoidable at some point.

It's as simple as that.

Much as i like you, i remain wholly unmoved by your reassurances to the contrary.

gunnut
21 Sep 06,, 18:13
:eek:
Who were they? Leftists ?

Pretty much. There's a significant minority in our public schools who absolutely hate everything about America. They believe the US is evil imperialist and the cause of all misery in the world. If only we can give all our wealth to all the poor people then this world would have no more suffering. But don't touch their stuff. These leftists are led by people like Noam Chomsky, who is a financial genius.

Wooglin
21 Sep 06,, 19:18
PuBFather,

Thank you for your insight.

It's like someone moving into your house and taking over one of your rooms, never coming out except to occasionally punch you in the face and then demand you apologize for it. Of course, it's hardly much different here.

Dreadnought
21 Sep 06,, 19:32
PuBFather,

Thank you for your insight.

It's like someone moving into your house and taking over one of your rooms, never coming out except to occasionally punch you in the face and then demand you apologize for it. Of course, it's hardly much different here.

All in good spirited debate my friend nothing personal we all have our days as well.:biggrin:
Cheers.

Ray
21 Sep 06,, 19:33
Well if that someone has paid to build your house, I am afraid there is nothing much you can do, can you?

astralis
21 Sep 06,, 19:54
mortis,


The European civilization was in DARKNESS due to continued attacks from Muslims!! Iberian peninsula invaded! France and numerous cities invaded and ransacked. Churches and cities in Italy invaded and ransacked.

I wonder why European civilization was having problems???

um, the iberian peninsula's economy grew significantly compared to the rest of europe during the so-called "dark" ages. any comparison of toledo and cordoba with paris and london during this time would have been light and dark.

by the way, there was no "european civilization" back then. there wasn't even a concept of "nation-state." and allow me to remind you that the visigoths, huns, and other assorted decidedly non-muslim "barbarians" did far more damage to italy and france- or rather, their dark-age counterpart- than the muslim raiders.

the main reason why europe as a whole was doing so poorly in the era was simply because after the collapse of rome, the organization of the europeans devolved down to the city-state or tribal level. it took one hundred-two hundred years of consolidation before we saw the beginnings of organization once more in europe.

astralis
21 Sep 06,, 20:06
gunnut,


Pretty much. There's a significant minority in our public schools who absolutely hate everything about America. They believe the US is evil imperialist and the cause of all misery in the world. If only we can give all our wealth to all the poor people then this world would have no more suffering. But don't touch their stuff. These leftists are led by people like Noam Chomsky, who is a financial genius.


you're exaggerating their political influence. if anything, the average college student is a good deal more conservative than their forebears in the 60s, something that has been noted repeatedly. no one is talking about the "2000s" as if it was the 60s reincarnated, after all.

certainly the college-age population is skewed towards liberalism as opposed to conservatism, but that's age-old.

in any case, for the most part, given the number of eligible college-age kids who actually go out and vote, i think the important thing to be seen is that college kids aren't crazy about politics one way or another. their interests are, as college kids are wont to display, homework, friends, beer, and sex, and not always necessarily in that order. :biggrin:

mich
21 Sep 06,, 20:10
Re: Post #29/ Mich.

That is quite a silly post by all standards. Keep your shame & diffidence to yourself and perhaps it may be a better world! Others will call a spade a spade and be done with it......

....Ordinary Muslims throughout the ages, have been sheep, many converts, others coming in with their baggage trains from afar, but they did precious little mostly when rabid fanaticism ruled.

..crying wolf is just going to make more and more people look at you and point out the hypocrisy.

sir,
the intention in that post was not to be silly. If it did sound silly, it was totally unintentional on our part.
with regard to the good Muslims who kept quiet when Mughal rulers like Aurangzeb(Nauranga) went berserk against Sikhs and other Indians, we can see a similar example in the 20th century when the nazis in germany(christian nation) sent 6,000,000,000 human beings to the gas chambers. similar problem here in germany during the 1930s , and 40s was that good christians "did precious little mostly when rabid fanaticism ruled." any reasonable person will see that the problem here is not the Christian faith or the faith of Islam or any other faith on this planet. it is just that certain followers of their respective faiths give the rest of the population(and their faith) a bad name before the eyes of the rest of the world.
with regard to crying wolf, that was also unintentional. that is something we do not want to do in these times we live in.

Wooglin
21 Sep 06,, 21:01
All in good spirited debate my friend nothing personal we all have our days as well.:biggrin:
Cheers.

I'm sorry. I think I missed something or something got misconstrued perhaps, but I don't understand your post.

Wooglin
21 Sep 06,, 21:32
Well if that someone has paid to build your house, I am afraid there is nothing much you can do, can you?

Are you referring to British India?

Wooglin
21 Sep 06,, 21:41
Getting back to the actual topic...

LAHORE, Pakistan (AP) -- About 1,000 clerics and religious scholars at a meeting in eastern Pakistan demanded the removal of the pope for making "insulting remarks" against Islam, and warned the West of severe consequences if it didn't change its stance regarding Islam.

Pope Benedict XVI "should be removed from his position immediately for encouraging war and fanning hostility between various faiths" and "making insulting remarks" against Islam, said a joint statement issued by the clerics and scholars at the end of their one-day convention in the eastern city of Lahore.

The "Pope, and all Infidels, should know that no Muslim, under any circumstances, can tolerate an insult to the Prophet (Muhammad).... If the West does not change its stance regarding Islam, it will face severe consequences," it said.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/09/21/pakistan.pope.ap/index.html

dalem
21 Sep 06,, 22:00
The "Pope, and all Infidels, should know that no Muslim, under any circumstances, can tolerate an insult to the Prophet (Muhammad)

Yeah, like that's news to us, ya whiney f*cking crybabying church-bombing nun-shooting artist-stabbing gay-stoning child-slaving embassy-burning jew-hating women-dominating honor-killing tribal scroteless sonsa*****es.

-dale

Wooglin
21 Sep 06,, 22:05
Yeah, like that's news to us, ya whiney f*cking crybabying church-bombing nun-shooting artist-stabbing gay-stoning child-slaving embassy-burning jew-hating women-dominating honor-killing tribal scroteless sonsa******es.

-dale

I take it you won't be "changing your stance" then? ;)

gunnut
21 Sep 06,, 22:09
It begs the question: what if the "religion of peace" is the one holding dominant nuclear power and technology in the world today while the "infidels" live in caves and scream about Jesus everyday?

What will the "religion of peace" do in that situation? Especially after some "infidels" bombed their women and children in suicide attacks.

:confused:

leib10
21 Sep 06,, 22:14
Yeah, like that's news to us, ya whiney f*cking crybabying church-bombing nun-shooting artist-stabbing gay-stoning child-slaving embassy-burning jew-hating women-dominating honor-killing tribal scroteless sonsa*****es.

-dale

Nice.

astralis
21 Sep 06,, 23:22
gunnut,


It begs the question: what if the "religion of peace" is the one holding dominant nuclear power and technology in the world today while the "infidels" live in caves and scream about Jesus everyday?

What will the "religion of peace" do in that situation? Especially after some "infidels" bombed their women and children in suicide attacks.

well, that's a question that we're likely to ever see encompass; societies that uphold such nihilism very rarely develop the economy for superior technology.

the last time we see the muslim "world" dominant (700~1300), it held a different type of societal beliefs than the ones we see prevalent in much of the islamic world today.

gunnut
22 Sep 06,, 00:42
I guess that's good for us that such a culture will never become dominant.

What has changed between the last time muslims had dominance and today?

bandwagon
22 Sep 06,, 01:08
I think we should welcome their protests to the Popes remarks. It means that they, modern Muslims, reject the characterisation, and demand to be portrayed as peaceful.

That they are angry is no surprise. They’re already smarting from being equated to the violent radicals who claim to be Muslims. They perceive they are then told by the Pope, masked as a quote from the past, that their religion contains nothing but violence. Whilst this isn’t exactly the point the Pope was making with his whole speech, it was that quote that was broadcast. It is no different to Ratzinger being told he is a torturing tyrant, as evidenced by the Spanish Inquisition.

In fact forced conversion was never part of Jihad. Soon after Mohammed’s death Muslim conquest, the creation and expansion of the Islamic empire, was just lust for riches and power, no different to other empire building. The conquered population converted by choice over hundreds of years, -though no doubt motivated by the fact that it gave them more rights.

Islam is simply a backward religion, intolerant, no different to Christianity in the Middle Ages and Renaissance, when you could be tortured and burnt as a heretic for thinking the wrong thing. The Islamic empire simply has not had the benefit of the Enlightenment, the French revolution: the introduction of individual rights and equality, with justice in place of revenge and honor-killing. Even then it took time for these notions to stick in the West.

The display of anger over perceived insults is a form of Jihad, -by “the word”, and it remains just that: rhetoric. The displays of violence are considered un-Islamic by most. The fact that values within Islam are inconsistent simply shows that there isn’t a single identity, despite what they pretend, and it’s still evolving in various directions.

Anyway, I think the Pope was wrong to even obliquely make a characterisation from history, even as an illustration only, and, as I say, the protests should be welcomed rather than criticised. However, having made his speech and invited “debate”, the Pope gave in too soon, he could have baited them further and invited today’s Muslims to categorically reject the notion of violent Jihad rather than just complain about being characterised, before apologising.

Parihaka
22 Sep 06,, 01:23
I guess that's good for us that such a culture will never become dominant.

What has changed between the last time muslims had dominance and today?
Islam was a religion as a part of a larger society. Over the period between now and then Islam has come to define that society. So the early flowers of science and rationalism that developed in the middle east were suppressed by Islam as it grew, because they represented a threat to the teachings of Muhammad (PBUH) just as Galileo Galilei was to the Holy Roman Church

Galileo was first denounced by the Roman Catholic Church in 1615. Fortunately, he was personally popular with the most powerful Church officials of his day. After wisely choosing to denounce his beliefs in a Copernican "sun-centered" universe, and promising he would never again teach it, Galileo was left alone by the Church for many years.

However... almost twenty years later, in 1632, with the publication of yet another book entitled Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems : Ptolemaic and Copernican, Galileo forced the reluctant Church to once again take action. In 1633 Galileo went before the Spanish Inquisition one final time. At his inquisition, Church officials refused to even look through Galileo's telescope. They knew full well that the Devil was capable of making anything illusory and deceptive appear in Galileo's telescope.

One more time, Church officials offered Galileo an option for the avoidance of being burned at the stake for church heresy. Denouncing his beliefs in a Copernican "sun-centered" universe, Galileo chose being imprisoned in his own home (and later in homes of his friends) for the remainder of his life. Galileo died January the 8th 1642
Sound like a familiar mindset?

dalem
22 Sep 06,, 02:25
Anyway, I think the Pope was wrong to even obliquely make a characterisation from history, even as an illustration only,

Sorry, I have to label that as "crazzap". Someone starts jackbooting around in a brown shirt and toothbrush mustache, hating Jews and screaming for elbow room, and I'm gonna start dredging up comparisons to Nazis.

-dale

astralis
22 Sep 06,, 03:15
gunnut,


What has changed between the last time muslims had dominance and today?

i've heard quite a few theories, ranging from the mongols (ransacked baghdad, killed the caliphate, ruined intricate irrigation/economy for over a hundred years), to ottoman decay at the top (superstition and decadence replacing former concern with science) to breakup of the whole caliphate system, civil war, western imperialism, association of science, rationality, tolerance with either the western imperialists or, alternatively, to the failed policies of nasser and the pan-arabists (whom also included, with the former GOOD ideas, with bad ideas like socialism).

no doubt all of them played a small role in twisting what had been an enlightened and fairly tolerant vision of islam into the dark, seething culture we see in so many places in the islamic world.

parihaka,


So the early flowers of science and rationalism that developed in the middle east were suppressed by Islam as it grew, because they represented a threat to the teachings of Muhammad (PBUH) just as Galileo Galilei was to the Holy Roman Church

i disagree. the caliphate for a long time actively supported the arts, sciences (ranging from mathematics to chemistry, which had its beginnings in the decidedly arabic term ALCHEMY), and intellectual development. they actively reached out and saved old greek texts (they often debated aristotle and plato) from becoming lost, while translating and publishing their work into arabic. the renaissance was largely started because european philosophers came across greek texts translated from the arabic.

what happened to all this? break-up of the state under the hammer blows of the mongols etc etc. when you're dealing with incessant war, famine, and ravaging of the countryside, such niceties as supporting science and rationality fall by the wayside. then despotism and incompetence of the ottomans slowly sap away at the vitality, much as chinese scientific development stagnated under the ming and mid-qing.

Parihaka
22 Sep 06,, 03:36
parihaka,
i disagree. the caliphate for a long time actively supported the arts, sciences (ranging from mathematics to chemistry, which had its beginnings in the decidedly arabic term ALCHEMY), and intellectual development. they actively reached out and saved old greek texts (they often debated aristotle and plato) from becoming lost, while translating and publishing their work into arabic. the renaissance was largely started because european philosophers came across greek texts translated from the arabic.


Here I have to disagree. There were several Renaissances from the early 1300's on, the English, the Carolingian, the Italian (actually several), and the 1500's were only really categorized as such by Petrach and the humanists who characterised the earlier 'dark ages' as such because of their devotion to the classical period.
As for the texts to which you refer, Petrach collected many from Europe itself but far more came from the Byzantine empire when the Greek-descent Christian academics fled the decline and eventual sack of Constantinople.

Infact from the fall of Rome cultural and scientific development advanced wherever there was reasonably stable development, and exploded wherever leadership allowed it to. Unfortunately for the Caliphate and the Ottoman Empire, after the initial flurry from 500ad through to 1000ad, those conditions seldom occured.

astralis
22 Sep 06,, 17:08
parihaka,


Here I have to disagree. There were several Renaissances from the early 1300's on, the English, the Carolingian, the Italian (actually several), and the 1500's were only really categorized as such by Petrach and the humanists who characterised the earlier 'dark ages' as such because of their devotion to the classical period.

that's why i quoted "dark" ages in quotes earlier. however, having said that, those mini-renaissances did not have the economic support nor cultural flowering nor political organization that we would see in the accepted Renaissance after 1450.


As for the texts to which you refer, Petrach collected many from Europe itself but far more came from the Byzantine empire when the Greek-descent Christian academics fled the decline and eventual sack of Constantinople.

Infact from the fall of Rome cultural and scientific development advanced wherever there was reasonably stable development, and exploded wherever leadership allowed it to. Unfortunately for the Caliphate and the Ottoman Empire, after the initial flurry from 500ad through to 1000ad, those conditions seldom occured.

of the total number, relatively few came from europe itself. quite a few indeed came from constantinople, but one cannot ignore the numerous texts that came from the arabic scholars.

the problem with western europe around this time was that "reasonably stable development" was hard to come by. like i said, it took around 100-200 years of post-roman consolidation to have the very beginnings of organization, and the bulk of science done in eurasia was thus concentrated in places that DID have organization- the caliphate, and to an even greater extent- china.

for the caliphate, there was indeed an initial burst, but i would argue that this era of science and relative enlightenment lasted from ~800-1250. the ottoman empire would have its burst of scientific greatness later, especially with its emphasis on military technology (early gunpowder weapons). still...450 years of scientific development, that's not too bad in anyone's book. that's almost the same amount of time from the renaissance to today.

Ray
22 Sep 06,, 17:25
Are you referring to British India?

I maybe an Indian, but my perceptions of events is not Indocentric!

It is a fact that the US has poured huge sums in aid to quite a few countries that has given them foundation.

Egypt is one of the major aid beneficiaries and so is Pakistan. In fact, it is the US money and the World Bank and IMF that has shored up Pakistan from bankruptcy to its current state.

Neither country is India.

And having done so, this is what they said
http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/09/22/bush-musharraf.html

Bush has also indicated that he will carry out strikes if Osama is there!

Well, so much so for yelps of sovereignty!

Does indicate that having built the house practically right from the days of the countries Independence, they (US) wishes to enter wothout knocking and there is little that Pakistan can do since the US will "blow Pakistan from the face of the Earth" (though Armitage has to deny this because of diplomatic niceties).

Armitage was a WWF wrestler, but he appears to have taken a leaf from Sniper's style of dialogue! ;) :)

Ray
22 Sep 06,, 18:00
PAKISTAN

General Musharraf is the right man in the right place at the right time.
Secretary of State Colin Powell[71]

Despite the sheen of democracy, Pakistan remains a military dictatorship in all but name. General Musharraf’s seizure of power was legitimized by a controversial nationwide referendum in April 2002, but many observers questioned the free and fair nature of this "exercise in democracy."[72]

Soon after September 11th, President Bush judged that the sanctions imposed on Pakistan "would not be in the national security interests of the United States."[73] Thus, in early November 2001, the U.S. agreed to provide Pakistan with $73 million in "border security" military hardware, including Huey helicopters and spare parts for F-16 fighter planes.[74]

The weapons sales have remained steady ever since. In July 2004, Bell Helicopter, a subsidiary of Textron, began delivering 26 412EP medium twin-engine helicopters and associated equipment, in a deal estimated at $230 million.[75]

At the end of March 2005, President Bush reversed 15 years of policy begun under his father by offering F-16 fighter planes to Islamabad. Initially, Pakistan plans on buying two dozen of the Lockheed Martin manufactured planes, but Bush administration officials note there would be no limits on how many could eventually be purchased.[76] Pakistan’s economy is not strong enough to allow Musharraf to purchase the $35 million per copy fighter planes, and so the deal will be accompanied by about $3 billion in military aid.[77]

To stave off criticism that he is playing favorites, President Bush accompanied the Pakistan F-16 announcement with a companion decision to open India to U.S. weapons manufacturers, sparking denunciations that sales of weapons technology to the rivals could lead to a South Asian arms race.

Major increases in military aid accompany these plans for new weapons and technology sales. In 2002, Pakistan was granted $75 million in FMF, the country’s first grant in more than 10 years. In 2003, the nation’s FMF totaled $49.5 million, supplemented by an anti-terrorism grant of $175 million. For 2004, FMF totaled $74.5 million with no supplemental appropriation. Another $148 million was allocated in 2005, and President Bush is requesting $300 million for 2006.[78]

Thus, Pakistan will have accumulated a total of $821 million in FMF support between 2002 (when FMF was resumed) and 2005. Additionally, military training funds are on the rise- from zero in 2001 to a $2 million request for 2006.[79]

The fiscal year 2006 Congressional justification explains the thinking behind the upsurge in military aid to Pakistan, saying "a strong U.S.-Pakistan partnership remains critical to continued progress in the global war on terrorism and regional stability."[80]

With these aims in mind, President Bush took the relationship one step further in June 2004, naming Pakistan a "Major Non-NATO Ally." This designation, accorded to only a handful of nations, makes Pakistan eligible for previously unavailable weapons like depleted uranium munitions, and new funding sources like U.S. government-backed loans to build up its military capability.[81]

A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing?

Even as word of this honored status was being communicated to Pakistan, the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9-11 Commission) cited evidence of Islamabad’s collaboration with the Taliban before the terrorist attacks.

While Pakistan has made significant contributions to the war against terrorism, arresting a number of high-value al-Qaeda operatives, the report found that "the Taliban’s ability to provide bin Laden a haven in the face of international pressure and UN sanctions was significantly facilitated by Pakistani support."[82]

According to another report from the Congressional Research Service, Pakistan has turned a blind eye to the Taliban and other militants who use its porous border regions as a launching pad for attacks against U.S., NATO and Afghani troops. The report, Afghanistan: Post War Governance, Security and U.S. Policy notes that "U.S. and Afghan officials continue to accuse Pakistan of allowing Taliban fighters to meet and group in Pakistani cities."[83]

An anonymous Western diplomat, quoted in the New York Times, was more colorful, saying "if you talk about the Taliban, its like fish in a barrel in Pakistan. They train, they rest there. They get support. "[84]
http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/reports/wawjune2005.html#7


Quite revealing!

Who paid what and who subsidised!




he largest U.S. military aid program, Foreign Military Financing (FMF), increased by 68% between 2001 and 2003, from $3.5 billion to nearly $6 billion. These years coincided with the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks and the run-up to the U.S. intervention in Iraq. The biggest increases in dollar terms went to countries that were directly or indirectly engaged as U.S. allies in the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, including Jordan ($525 million increase from 2001 to 2003), Afghanistan ($191 million increase), Pakistan ($224 million increase) and Bahrain ($90 million increase). The Philippines, where the United States stepped up joint operations against a local terrorist group with alleged links to al-Qaeda, also received a substantial increase of FMF funding ($47 million) from 2001 to 2003. Military aid totals have leveled off slightly since their FY 2003 peak, coming in at a requested $4.5 billion for 2006. This is still a full $1 billion more than 2001 levels. The number of countries receiving FMF assistance nearly doubled from FY 2001 to FY 2006-- from 48 to 71 between 2001 and 2006—a 47.9% increase.

The biggest gainers in FMF assistance in dollar terms were Jordan (+$127 million), Pakistan (+$300 million) and Afghanistan (+$396 million). None of these countries are democracies that fully respect human rights, according to the State Department’s Human Rights Report. For more details, see TABLE III.

While the bulk of the value of the transfers documented in TABLE II represent shipments to Israel, other longstanding U.S. customers that received major transfers of def ense articles between 1994 and 2003 include India ($128 million), Indonesia ($121.2 million), Pakistan ($429.1 million), the Philippines ($380.8 million) and Colombia ($656.5 million). Given the durability of modern weapons systems, much of this weaponry has no doubt been used in the current conflicts in recipient nations.

Pakistan enjoyed an almost 200% increase in aid between 2002 and 2003, from $75 million to $224 million.

http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/reports/wawjune2005.html

Wooglin,

AID does mean assistance to build a country, even in this instant case, it is of weaponry. Does build the ego of a nation that was about to be declared a rogue and a failed state! :eek: Don't forget the othe economic AID and the aid by the World Bank and IMF, both of which require US to acquiiesce.

No wonder the Americans get wild that US money subsidises, or is given free as aid and then blokes go berserk and start burning US Flags or call them the Great White Satan!

I agree US is no paragon of virtues, but then we should not totally have NO good words for the US. Cannot be blind or so disgracefully dishonest that the US does nothing!

I am also of the view that if we are to take a moral and upright stand, we might as well not so eagerly extend our outstretched palm for alms like beggers.

PubFather
23 Sep 06,, 00:14
Then civil warfare or a silent dissappearance of freedom into the night time British sky is unavoidable at some point.
I would predict an serious civil unrest when and if the next couple of major terrorist attacks come off... I wouldnt disagree with you there. Warfare is too strong - Muslims make up 3% of the UK population, they simply do not exist in suficient numbers for the domesday scenario that is often painted. Freedoms are a different issue - and one with the current gvt that I worry about


Much as i like you, i remain wholly unmoved by your reassurances to the contrary.
I like you too Snipe. I respect you as the voice of that which I fear might be the truth; the rage at the nonsense spouted by a religion mirred in its medieval attititude, and inability to adapt to the modern world. However, my "reasssurances" (which are as much to myself as anyone else) are based on the longterm ability of society to integrate different cultures and belief systems. Society is flux, and rightly so.

Above all, I trust, and hope I'm right to believe that most UK Muslims are decent people.

I also want to keep a clear channel of communication open with my US cousins to make sure i can get the required armament in case i am horribly wrong... ;)

Kansas Bear
23 Sep 06,, 07:42
mortis,
by the way, there was no "european civilization" back then. there wasn't even a concept of "nation-state." and allow me to remind you that the visigoths, huns, and other assorted decidedly non-muslim "barbarians" did far more damage to italy and france- or rather, their dark-age counterpart- than the muslim raiders..

"no european civilization"....
Charlemagne... :rolleyes:

I guess this was all just some fantasy then.......

652 AD -- Sicily is attacked by Muslims coming out of Tunisia.

667 AD -- Sicily is attacked by Muslims.

700 AD -- Muslims from Pamntelleria raid the island of Sicily

711 AD -- Tariq ibn Malik, a Berber officer, crosses the strait separating Africa and Europe with a group of Muslims and enters Spain (al-Andalus, as the Muslims called it, a word is etymologically linked to "Vandals"). The first stop in the Muslim conquest of Spain is at the foot of a mountain that comes to be called Jabel Tarik, the Mountain of Tarik. Today it is known as Gibraltar

July, 711 AD -- Battle of Guadalete: Tariq ibn Ziyad kills King Rodrigo (or Roderic), Visigoth ruler of Spain, at the Guadalete River in the south of the Iberian peninsula. Tariq ibn Ziyad had landed at Gibraltar with 7,000 Muslims. Almost the entire Iberian peninsula would come under Islamic control by 0718 CE.

712 AD -- Muslim governor of Northern Africa Musa ibn Nusayr follows Tariq ibn Ziyad with an army of 18,000 as reinforcements for the conquest of Andalusia

715 AD -- By this year just about all of Spain is in Muslim hands. The Muslim conquest of Spain only took around three years but the Christian reconquest would require around 460 years

716 AD -- Lisbon is captured by Muslims

717 AD -- Cordova (Qurtuba) becomes the capital of Muslim holdings in Andalusia (Spain).

719 AD -- Muslims attack Septimania in southern France

July, 721 AD -- A Muslim army under the command of Al-Semah and that had crossed the Pyrenees is defeated by the Franks near Toulouse. Al-Semah is killed and his remaining forces, which had previously conquered Narbonne, are forced back across the Pyrenees into Spain.

722 AD -- Battle of Covadonga: Pelayo, (0690-0737) Visigoth noble who had been elected the first King of Asturias (0718-0737), defeats a Muslim army at Alcama near Covadonga. This is generally regarded as the first real Christian victory over the Muslims in the Reconquista

724 AD -- Under the command of Ambissa, Emir of Andalusia, Muslim forces raid southern France and capture the cities of Carcassone and Nimes. Primary targets in these and other raids are churches and monasteries where the Muslims take away holy objects and enslave or kill all the clerics.
725 AD -- Muslim forces occupied Nimes, France.

730 AD -- Muslim forces occupy the French cities of Narbonne and Avignon.

Oct, 732 AD -- Battle of Tours: Charles Martel halts a Muslim force of around 40,000 to 60,000 cavalry under Abd el-Rahman Al Ghafiqi from moving farther into Europe

735 AD -- Muslim invaders capture the city of Arles.

759 AD -- Arabs lose the city of Narbonne, France, their furthest and last conquest into Frankish territory. In capturing this city Pippin III (Pippin the Short) ends the Muslim incursions in France.

792 AD -- Hisham I, emir of Cordova, calls for a Jihad against the infidels in Andalusia and France. Tens of thousands from as far away as Syria heed his call and cross the Pyrennes to subjugate France. Cities like Narbonne are destroyed, but the invasion is ultimately hated at Carcassone.

813 AD -- Muslims attack the Civi Vecchia near Rome.

June, 827 AD -- Sicily is invaded by Muslims who, this time, are looking to take control of the island rather than simply taking away booty

831 AD -- Muslim invaders capture the Sicilian city of Palermo and make it their capital.

838 AD -- Muslim raiders sack Marseille

846 AD -- Muslim raiders sail a fleet of ships from Africa up the Tiber river and attack outlying areas around Ostia and Rome. Some manage to enter Rome and damage the churches of St. Peter and St. Paul. Not until Pope Leo IV promises a yearly tribute of 25,000 silver coins do the raiders leave. The Leonine Wall is built in order to fend off further attacks such as this.

849 AD -- Battle of Ostia: Aghlabid monarch Muhammad sends a fleet of ships from Sardinia to attack Rome. As the fleet prepares to land troops, the combination of a large storm and an alliance of Christian forces were able to destroy the Muslims ships.

859 AD -- Muslim invaders capture the Sicilian city of Castrogiovanni (Enna), slaughtering several thousand inhabitants

869 AD -- Arabs capture the island of Malta.

870 AD -- After a month-long siege, the Sicilian city of Syracuse is captured by Muslim invaders.

876 AD -- Muslims pillage Campagna in Italy.

884 AD -- Muslims invading Italy burn the monastery of Monte Cassino to the ground.

902 AD -- The Muslim conquest of Sicily is completed when the last Christian stronghold, the city of Taorminia, is captured. Muslim rule of Sicily would last for 264 years

911 AD -- Muslims control all the passes in the Alps between France and Italy, cutting off passage between the two countries

920 AD -- Muslim forces cross the Pyrenees, enter Gascony, and reach as far as the gates of Toulouse.

985 AD -- Al-Mansur Ibn Abi Aamir sacks Barcelona

994 AD -- The monastery of Monte Cassino is destroyed a second time by Arabs.
997 AD -- Muslim forces under Almanzor arrive at the city of Compostela. The city had been evacuated and Almanzor burns it to the ground.

1004 AD -- Arab raiders sack the Italian city of Pisa.


So 400+ yrs of constant attacks by muslims had NO negative impact on Europe. Yet your argument is how the "non-muslim" barbarians effected Rome and it's downfall. Yah, real linear logic there. :rolleyes:

lemontree
23 Sep 06,, 07:55
Mortis, thanks for that historical research on the sequence of events.

Parihaka
23 Sep 06,, 07:59
parihaka,



that's why i quoted "dark" ages in quotes earlier. however, having said that, those mini-renaissances did not have the economic support nor cultural flowering nor political organization that we would see in the accepted Renaissance after 1450.There is no accepted Renaissance, that's the whole point, it is a myth propogated by the humanists, just as the'dark ages were a myth.




of the total number, relatively few came from europe itself. quite a few indeed came from constantinople, but one cannot ignore the numerous texts that came from the arabic scholars. Well actually I can. There is little or no evidence of texts translated from Persian. There are however a mountain of texts taken from the Greek and developed as European languages developed. The whole myth of the Caliphate keeping alive the classic whilst all of Europe was in darkness is just that: a myth. The only reason for it to develop was because the books and the scholars came from the east; but they came from Christian Constantinople, not the Caliphate


the problem with western europe around this time was that "reasonably stable development" was hard to come by.No it wasn't, apart from England during the Germanic invasions and the later unpleasantnesses in Romania and greater Serbia, there is a wealth of information about the areas, and it was generally characterised by stable rural activity. Not I will grant you given to great scientific outbursts, but not the heaving pit of barbarity you have previously characterised it as either.
Infact in the Italian states things got quite a bit worse for the lower classes during and after the 'renaissance'. As new discoveries were made or old ones reintroduced, the first thing the rulers did of course was try them out for warfare:rolleyes:

for the caliphate, there was indeed an initial burst, but i would argue that this era of science and relative enlightenment lasted from ~800-1250. the ottoman empire would have its burst of scientific greatness later, especially with its emphasis on military technology (early gunpowder weapons). still...450 years of scientific development, that's not too bad in anyone's book. that's almost the same amount of time from the renaissance to today.
Indeed, 450 years is good but I'd contend that the great years were the early ones and the rest a gradual decline.

edit: don't get me wrong here. Greek texts were translated into persian and vice versa and the caliphate had fine scholars: they just weren't the spur for the 'renaissance' that popular myth would have it.

astralis
23 Sep 06,, 08:45
parihaka,


There is no accepted Renaissance, that's the whole point, it is a myth propogated by the humanists, just as the'dark ages were a myth.

i don't see how that assumption holds up to reason. you make a good point about the greek texts flowing in from constantinople: well, obviously as you point out with texts coming in from the fall of that great city, we saw a dispersion of the old knowledge throughout europe at rates greater than what we see before.

that would argue for a division. the fall of the roman empire was such a great event through european history that one has to divide the period between the end of the roman empire and the very beginnings of the modern european state. the europe of 500 was significantly different from the europe of 1500, with one of the bigger changes coming as a result of the italian (and not, for example, the carolingian) renaissance. but i do agree it is an error to over-emphasize the difference- it's just that denying the greater impact of the italian renaissance as compared to the english or the carolingian renaissance is probably mistaken as well.


Well actually I can. There is little or no evidence of texts translated from Persian. There are however a mountain of texts taken from the Greek and developed as European languages developed. The whole myth of the Caliphate keeping alive the classic whilst all of Europe was in darkness is just that: a myth. The only reason for it to develop was because the books and the scholars came from the east; but they came from Christian Constantinople, not the Caliphate

we're not talking just about ancient greek texts here (although we have evidence that greek texts came not from persia, but from egypt). like i said before, there's a reason why we have algebra and chemistry (a derivative of alchemy). there's a reason why we use algorithms. and why we use hindu-arabic numerals instead of latin ones (not forgetting the concept of zero, also transmitted via indian scholars to arabic scholars and finally to europe).


No it wasn't, apart from England during the Germanic invasions and the later unpleasantnesses in Romania and greater Serbia, there is a wealth of information about the areas, and it was generally characterised by stable rural activity. Not I will grant you given to great scientific outbursts, but not the heaving pit of barbarity you have previously characterised it as either.
Infact in the Italian states things got quite a bit worse for the lower classes during and after the 'renaissance'. As new discoveries were made or old ones reintroduced, the first thing the rulers did of course was try them out for warfar

i didn't describe europe as the pit of barbarity, but there really were no places in europe (not paris, not london, not even the flemish trading cities) during the period 500-1500 could hold a candle to the likes of nanjing, baghdad, or cordoba.

as for scientific development, certainly, i would agree that italian renaissance era europe was no stable place. the main scientific discoveries would have to wait until stabilization, post ~1550-1600. prior to that, the main impact of the discoveries was really in the military field.


edit: don't get me wrong here. Greek texts were translated into persian and vice versa and the caliphate had fine scholars: they just weren't the spur for the 'renaissance' that popular myth would have it.

i would not describe them as the sole spur, of course; but i do not think it is possible to deny that it was ONE of the spurs, simply given the scientific impact of just the few things i named above.

astralis
23 Sep 06,, 08:53
mortis,


"no european civilization"....
Charlemagne...

why stop at charlemagne? there were civilizations in england at the time, and in ireland, and in scandnavia, and in post-roman italy....

i hope you didn't misunderstand me. i meant there was no OVERARCHING "european" civilization, not that there was NO civilization in europe.

nice little list you got there too, mortis. i will admit that if charles martel had lost at the battle of tours, we'd probably see a very different europe. but past that, the rest were relatively piddly raids. after all, during this whole time, as parihaka has pointed out, europe (or rather the individual states) underwent several minor renaissances, developed a more interlocked economy, a powerful church, and military power. in fact, enough military power so that not too long after the end of your timeline, the europeans paid back the arabs by initiating several hundred years' worth of crusades.

Parihaka
23 Sep 06,, 09:42
parihaka,



i don't see how that assumption holds up to reason. you make a good point about the greek texts flowing in from constantinople: well, obviously as you point out with texts coming in from the fall of that great city, we saw a dispersion of the old knowledge throughout europe at rates greater than what we see before.

that would argue for a division. the fall of the roman empire was such a great event through european history that one has to divide the period between the end of the roman empire and the very beginnings of the modern european state. the europe of 500 was significantly different from the europe of 1500, with one of the bigger changes coming as a result of the italian (and not, for example, the carolingian) renaissance. but i do agree it is an error to over-emphasize the difference- it's just that denying the greater impact of the italian renaissance as compared to the english or the carolingian renaissance is probably mistaken as well.



we're not talking just about ancient greek texts here (although we have evidence that greek texts came not from persia, but from egypt). like i said before, there's a reason why we have algebra and chemistry (a derivative of alchemy). there's a reason why we use algorithms. and why we use hindu-arabic numerals instead of latin ones (not forgetting the concept of zero, also transmitted via indian scholars to arabic scholars and finally to europe).



i didn't describe europe as the pit of barbarity, but there really were no places in europe (not paris, not london, not even the flemish trading cities) during the period 500-1500 could hold a candle to the likes of nanjing, baghdad, or cordoba.

as for scientific development, certainly, i would agree that italian renaissance era europe was no stable place. the main scientific discoveries would have to wait until stabilization, post ~1550-1600. prior to that, the main impact of the discoveries was really in the military field.



i would not describe them as the sole spur, of course; but i do not think it is possible to deny that it was ONE of the spurs, simply given the scientific impact of just the few things i named above.
I think we've hammered out common ground:cool:

Parihaka
23 Sep 06,, 09:45
nice little list you got there too, mortis..I too enjoyed that list.
Whilst I haven't taken the time to check its accuracy I've posted it at PDF just for the fun of it.:biggrin:

Kansas Bear
23 Sep 06,, 15:57
I too enjoyed that list.
Whilst I haven't taken the time to check its accuracy I've posted it at PDF just for the fun of it.:biggrin:



Jihad in the West, by Paul Fregosi
http://www.amazon.com/Jihad-West-Muslim-Conquests-Centuries/dp/1573922471/sr=1-1/qid=1159022351/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-0923033-3934409?ie=UTF8&s=books

Islamic Imperialism : A History, by Efraim Karsh
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0300106033/ref=pd_cp_b_title/002-0923033-3934409?ie=UTF8


Astralis, you talk about "cultural" improvements on the Iberian peninsula as if that justifies invasion. What about the attack on the Byzantine Empire? The Eastern Roman Empire had no cultural achievements? The attack on monasteries/churches crippled European culture. These were used as schools and libraries for Europe.

"One of the first abbeys to benefit from Carolingian interest was St. Denis....Pippin the Short had, moreover, been a student in this monastery....", "The Carolingians: The family that forged Europe", by Pierre Riche', p 345.

astralis
23 Sep 06,, 16:49
mortis,


Astralis, you talk about "cultural" improvements on the Iberian peninsula as if that justifies invasion. What about the attack on the Byzantine Empire? The Eastern Roman Empire had no cultural achievements? The attack on monasteries/churches crippled European culture. These were used as schools and libraries for Europe.

"One of the first abbeys to benefit from Carolingian interest was St. Denis....Pippin the Short had, moreover, been a student in this monastery....", "The Carolingians: The family that forged Europe", by Pierre Riche', p 345.

what type of standards are you using? you're not talking about the 20th century, where even the likes of hitler had to find excuses for invasion. we're talking about the freakin' 500s-1500s, where justification really wasn't needed for looting, raiding, and killing.

what "justification" was needed when the huns and the visigoths overran the roman empire? what "justification" was needed when the crusades were launched? what "justification" was needed when the very same "christian knights" of europe attacked and captured ostensibly christian constantinople?

you try to make it look like there was one huge evil islamic force that has, without reason, been attacking europe just to crush christendom and "european culture". when in reality, it was nothing more than the regular desire to pillage, loot, and conquer that sparked decisions made on both sides. you really think that if europe had the power that the caliphate did, that it wouldn't invade the middle east? i think the conquest of north/south america, and the crusades, perfectly dispels that idea.

astralis
23 Sep 06,, 16:51
parihaka,


I think we've hammered out common ground

looks so. cheers, and thanks for a great conversation. :biggrin:

Bill
23 Sep 06,, 16:56
"SWITZERLAND: Fascism's pawn shop since 1939."
~M21Sniper
Thanks be to ye for the spread of my words oh ye mortis, great grey stallion of Death. :biggrin:

Ray
23 Sep 06,, 19:03
Sniper,

You have been made immortal by Mr Rigor Mortis!

Kansas Bear
23 Sep 06,, 20:53
mortis,

what type of standards are you using? you're not talking about the 20th century, where even the likes of hitler had to find excuses for invasion. we're talking about the freakin' 500s-1500s, where justification really wasn't needed for looting, raiding, and killing.

The standard that Muslims invaded and murdered those living on the Iberian peninsula. Is that "standard" enough? Just because AFTER the slaughter sometime later they form a culture is no excuse. Just as these clerics use the word crusader as a profanity, they ignore the NUMEROUS "jihads" called by their own faith.

More ignored history:
"Hisham I, emir of Cordova, calls for a Jihad against the infidels in Andalusia and France. Tens of thousands from as far away as Syria heed his call and cross the Pyrennes to subjugate France. Cities like Narbonne are destroyed, but the invasion is ultimately halted at Carcassone. -- 792 CE"

"Caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah, founder of the Druze sect and sixth Fatimid Caliph in Egypt, orders the Holy Sepulcher and all Christian buildings in Jerusalem be destroyed. -- 1009 CE"



what "justification" was needed when the huns and the visigoths overran the roman empire? what "justification" was needed when the crusades were launched? what "justification" was needed when the very same "christian knights" of europe attacked and captured ostensibly christian constantinople?

So Islam was justified? Intriguing.....




you try to make it look like there was one huge evil islamic force that has, without reason, been attacking europe just to crush christendom and "european culture". when in reality, it was nothing more than the regular desire to pillage, loot, and conquer that sparked decisions made on both sides.

Isn't it just so "quaint" to make the generalization that "both sides" took part in this and that, when prior to 1095, Europe was on the recieving end....



you really think that if europe had the power that the caliphate did, that it wouldn't invade the middle east?

Nothing like the ole what if this, or what if that....I'll stick to reality.



i think the conquest of north/south america, and the crusades, perfectly dispels that idea.

I don't recall any muslims living in north or south america during the European invasion.......

As for the crusades, if anyone had the sense to read what was going on in Europe prior to 1095, then Urban II's call for a crusade becomes quite clear.

astralis
24 Sep 06,, 01:30
mortis,



The standard that Muslims invaded and murdered those living on the Iberian peninsula. Is that "standard" enough? Just because AFTER the slaughter sometime later they form a culture is no excuse. Just as these clerics use the word crusader as a profanity, they ignore the NUMEROUS "jihads" called by their own faith.

More ignored history:
"Hisham I, emir of Cordova, calls for a Jihad against the infidels in Andalusia and France. Tens of thousands from as far away as Syria heed his call and cross the Pyrennes to subjugate France. Cities like Narbonne are destroyed, but the invasion is ultimately halted at Carcassone. -- 792 CE"

"Caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah, founder of the Druze sect and sixth Fatimid Caliph in Egypt, orders the Holy Sepulcher and all Christian buildings in Jerusalem be destroyed. -- 1009 CE"

boo-freakin'-hoo. the romans wiped out the spanish tribes that lived in iberia. they wiped out the carthaginians that lived in iberia. (heck, the carthaginians wiped out quite a few spanish tribes too.)

and the romans did a more complete job than the caliphate did. during their time of expansion, they got spain...and north africa...and egypt...and syria...and iraq...etc etc etc.

murder, conquest, and killing was a standard back then that didn't need justification.


Isn't it just so "quaint" to make the generalization that "both sides" took part in this and that, when prior to 1095, Europe was on the recieving end....

stop using "europe" as a general term, when "europe" as a whole didn't exist back then. what would you describe the viking invasions? norsemen's jihad? "europe" was plenty brutal to its own.


I don't recall any muslims living in north or south america during the European invasion.......

As for the crusades, if anyone had the sense to read what was going on in Europe prior to 1095, then Urban II's call for a crusade becomes quite clear.

in other words, christians doing murder, killing, and conquest is a-okay, right? my point is simply that europe was a damn violent place in those days. both to its own and to others. what the caliphate did, sure, it was violent, but compared to europeans themselves did to each other and to other forces (ie the mongols), what the muslims did was piddly, and absolutely so.

you do realize each european state didn't really care all that much about the other. if a muslim raid happened in "france", then people in "germany" didn't really give a shite. pope urban's call for a crusade was more about him trying to gain more temporal power, by lashing the increasingly seperatist/secular european kings and nobles to him. by stopping what pope urban considered frivolous jousting. dealing a blow to the muslim world was decidedly low when it came down to the priorities.

after all, after the crusaders came in and won their initial victories, they soon got down and signed truces with the hated muslims, and began fighting among themselves...while sacking constantinople in the process. :rolleyes:

gilgamesh
24 Sep 06,, 04:47
mortis,

in other words, christians doing murder, killing, and conquest is a-okay, right? my point is simply that europe was a damn violent place in those days. both to its own and to others. what the caliphate did, sure, it was violent, but compared to europeans themselves did to each other and to other forces (ie the mongols), what the muslims did was piddly, and absolutely so.

:rolleyes:


I hope that statement is vis-a-vis Europe. Even then, only southern half of Spain (until El Cid's arrival) and parts of Balkans have seen real conquest by moslems. Also you are comparing golden age of Islam with Europe's dark age, not a fair comparison.

Kansas Bear
24 Sep 06,, 17:34
in other words, christians doing murder, killing, and conquest is a-okay, right? my point is simply that europe was a damn violent place in those days. both to its own and to others. what the caliphate did, sure, it was violent, but compared to europeans themselves did to each other and to other forces (ie the mongols), what the muslims did was piddly, and absolutely so.
"Piddly"?
Burning churches, cities and monasteries??
You use the excuse of barbarian tribes invading the Roman Empire as a contributing factor to it's downfall, then label the invasion of Europe by Muslims as "piddly"??

:rolleyes:


you do realize each european state didn't really care all that much about the other. if a muslim raid happened in "france", then people in "germany" didn't really give a shite. pope urban's call for a crusade was more about him trying to gain more temporal power, by lashing the increasingly seperatist/secular european kings and nobles to him. by stopping what pope urban considered frivolous jousting. dealing a blow to the muslim world was decidedly low when it came down to the priorities.


"When Pope Leo VI(928-929CE) appealed for resistance against the Arabs threatening Rome...." p 311

"Pope John X had managed in 916 to dislodge a force of Arab invaders based along the Garigliano River." p240

"He(Hugh of Arles 932CE) endeavored to combat the Arab forces that now partly controlled access to the Alps from a base at Fraxinetum, near Draguignan in Provence." p 241

"Much like the contemporary kings of the Asturias, Wilfred(888CE) defended his counties against Muslim aggression and also worked to repopulate deserted territory." p233

"The pontiff(Pope John VIII) called for help against the Arab raiders who were pillaging Campania and the Sabine Hills south of Rome, destroying churches and threatening the city itself." p203

Ray
24 Sep 06,, 17:40
All I can say it that Christians of today have distanced itself from it past.

Christians are living in the present. The religion has evolved keeping pace with the modern realities.

Can we say that of Islam?

That is the crux of the issue that must have prompted the Pope's lecture.

astralis
24 Sep 06,, 17:46
"Piddly"?
Burning churches, cities and monasteries??
You use the excuse of barbarian tribes invading the Roman Empire as a contributing factor to it's downfall, then label the invasion of Europe by Muslims as "piddly"??

yes, piddly. those raids came nowhere close to causing the downfall of even ONE european state. the only attack that came close was stopped at the battle of tours.

the viking raids caused considerably more damage than the muslim ones.

Kansas Bear
24 Sep 06,, 21:47
yes, piddly. those raids came nowhere close to causing the downfall of even ONE european state. the only attack that came close was stopped at the battle of tours.

Yet these "piddly" raids conquered much of the iberian peninsula..... followed by the jihad declared by Hisham I of Cordoba..... :rolleyes:

"Rome is attacked. The sack of Rome by the Muslims transcended in
intensity and horror of human carnage any that had occurred in the
past. The Basilicas of St. Peter and St. Paul, and all the surrounding
buildings, are razed. Thousands of priests, nuns, and innocents are
slaughtered. -- 846 CE"

"One fine example is the sacking of Rome by the Muslims in 846 A.D. The Muslim invaders arrived in a fleet at the mouth of the Tiber, made their way to Rome, sacked the city, and carried away from the basilica of St. Peter all of the gold and silver it contained. This was not a 'one time' event. They conquered, raped, and pillaged Sicily, Taranto, Bari, Brindisi, and Beneveto. The Muslims mercilessly attacked Naples, Calabria, Capua, and Sardinia several times. They also put the sword to Montecassino." -- "The Legacy of Jihad", a book edited by Andrew G. Bostom.



the viking raids caused considerably more damage than the muslim ones.


How do you measure destruction?? Ask a Muslim cleric? :rolleyes:

astralis
24 Sep 06,, 22:57
mortis,

we're done here. i've tried to tell you that european history has demonstrated acts of violence on itself and others considerably greater than whatever it is that the caliphate did to europe as a whole.

but hey, feel free to stick to your weird sense of victimization. :rolleyes:

Kansas Bear
01 Oct 06,, 23:12
mortis,

we're done here. i've tried to tell you that european history has demonstrated acts of violence on itself
Wow. I'm impressed by this statement. :rolleyes:

So since Europe has fought two world wars, numerous religious wars, and numerous monarchial wars, all atrocities committed in the past are null and void. :rolleyes:



and others considerably greater than whatever it is that the caliphate did to europe as a whole.

Measured how?

This wasn't about whether Europe has been more barbaric/immoral than Islamic countries/regimes. It's about the fact that Islam's expansion caused Europe to be subjected to 400+ yrs of aggression, and that Islam's use of the word "crusader" is as pathetic as your attempt to lessen the damage they caused!


but hey, feel free to stick to your weird sense of victimization. :rolleyes:

Unlike certain Muslims, I won't be murdering any nuns or priests!:biggrin: