[Cody Dawg]

Honestly, I don't care if someone is a Scientologist, Christian Scientist (oxymoron there), Jew, Muslim, Christian, or a Jaine from India. To be honest, come to think of it, we would all do better if we took a lesson or two from the Jaines.

But, I do want to say VW/Sayf-Allah that your signature is one of the most idiotic things I've ever seen and you know what?

YOU perpetuate the idea that the West should abhor and despise Muslims because of their hateful rhetoric - because of your "signature."

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by marden

Only some of Muhammad's violence was defensive. And even less Islamic violence is so today. A person who is coerced or intimidated by violence into conversion may not be a true convert. But if he stops being a Muslim he becomes an apostate and faces a death penalty. So the effect is that the number of new Muslims increases. There is little backward movement in Islam, it seems. Once Muslim land, always Muslim land. Once a Muslim always a Muslim.

1. Every violence of prophet Muhammad was clearly in defensive nature, in order to bring a war to an end that was started by polytheistic Mecca and later joined by other allies, that had the goal to kill him and all of his followers, or at least to enforce him and his followers to denounce the monotheistic message and to get back to polytheism.

2. The doctrine that slowly but surely developed in sunnism is not necessarily identical with the quranic message and prophet Muhammad's actions and God's will, like every religious doctrine on this planet, it is a compromise between the divine message and the political realities and human interests. Doctrines have to be questioned and developed and wrong traditions like most that stem from Hadith-collections have to be abandoned, but like in every religion that is a slow and painful process.

Originally Posted by marden

The outrage may be partly due to Muslims feeling insulted and their belief they must respond in defense of the Prophet or the religion, but I wonder how embarrassing it is for the Muslim world to hear someone as respected as he come out and say what seemingly most others are afraid to.

The pope didn't say anything new, he quoted from an old polemic hate-text from the middle-age, written by an embittered ex-byzantine emperor,who had to live through a time where the Byzantine empire was shrinking and the ottoman empire expanding.

Similar polemics are used by american evangelists in order to take cheap shots against the prophet.

The surprising and new thing is that the pope of the catholic church did this, too, espescially surprising because since the vatican-council-declaration from the seventies, the catholic church aimed to build an alliance with the other two abrahamitic religions, ie. Judaism and Islam for the purpose of standing together against the forces of materialism.

Originally Posted by marden

I think this will go a long way in helping remove more of the confusion many people still have about the potential threat of Islam. The worldwide dialog will be renewed and we'll be left with a better understanding.

Every active ideology is a potential threat, there are so many potential threats right now, it's hard to mention them all.
The ideology of Islam,ie. Islamism is one positioned against secularism, doubt, man-made-laws, it's a sort of counter-design to the materialistic and secularistic worldview.

Originally Posted by marden

Before, during and after the Second World War there were peace loving Germans who did not agree with the Nazis. But those who did agree with them were also at least tacitly supportive of their anti-Jewish policies.

Peace and war are two sides of the same coin, the one cannot be without the other, sometimes the one can cause the other.
The actions of the nazis were not simply anti-jewish, they were antisemitic, for the Nazis there was no compromise, jews couldn't convert or acknowledge the superiority and domination of the other, for the nazis they were jews because of their blood, and so they had either to completely leave or to die.

Originally Posted by marden

If the Prophet Muhammad preached contempt toward Jews

He didn't and that's the whole point. The Quran clearly criticized jews, but it also criticized arabs, polytheists, christians, nearly everyone in Arabia back then, and often enough the followers of prophet Muhammad and sometimes even prophet Muhammad himself. After all the Quran is God's message and had the goal of bringing the people living in Arabia back to God's path.
Nonetheless the Quran made clear that anyone, be it a jew, a christian or a muslim or any other monotheist who believes in God and the last day/ressurection/judgment day will have the same opportunity to reach paradise, depending on good deeds and righteousness.

By the way Moses also criticized jews, and Jesus as well, does that mean they, too, preached contempt toward jews?

Originally Posted by marden

and today's Muslims practice discrimination and bigotry toward Jews and terrorists and their leaders and President Ahmadinejad and Hezbollah leader Nasrallah and Osama bin Laden are anti-Semites and they are all said to be very devoutly religious Muslims I think the world needs to recognize the truth.

What truth? To be called a devout religious muslim, you just have to pray five times a day, visit the mosque at fridays, fast in ramadan, do the haj-pilgrimage and read the Quran once in a while.

Oh and by the way, none of the people you mentioned are anti-semites, they might well have contempt for jews but as soon that jews would convert they would welcome them, so what they feel is anti-jewishness maybe on the level of Martin Luther.

Originally Posted by marden

And these comments from the Pope will open up the discussion again concerning what is the true nature of Islam.

Every voice will speak and hopefully the truth will rise above the noise.

I always hope that the truth will win.

Originally Posted by marden

Eventually I hope the Islamic world and the non-Islamic world will be able to speak honestly. This may help that to happen. If everyone knows the real objective of the jihadists and the non-Muslim world says "we know your intentions and all of the people in the world understand the truth of the matter and are not going to allow you to take these nations," what would the Islamic world do?

Strangely and ironically your thinking mirrors exactly the thinking of the radical Islamists, and they are saying and hoping similar things only from their side and point of view, they hope that the islamic world will wake up and see the truth about the west, that it has the goal to defeat the islamic world and to bring it under its control, and they also hope that the Muslim-world says "We know your intentions and all of the people in the world understand the truth of the matter and are not going to allow you to take these nations"..

Originally Posted by marden

The essential element of the Pope's message is to those who still wish to believe a falsehood, that Islam is a religion of peace.

I think you don't know what the Pope's intention was. His intention was to bolster catholicism in Germany, where in the last few decades it lost really ground to secularists and atheism. He wanted to appeal to the rationality of the germans and trying to underline his idea that faith and rationality can go hand in hand, and actually should, that God is a diety of rationality... and then using the envogue-topic of Islam to make a cheap point, trying to differentiate catholicism from Islam.

Originally Posted by marden

I believe most Muslims want the same things most anyone else wants. Life, liberty (as they define it) and happiness. But I believe there is also a small minority who believe so much in the fundamental teachings of the Koran

I would wish that the fundamental teachings of the Quran would be understood by all muslims and espescially by the socalled fundamentalists and radicals, but I don't have much hope, they are thickheaded bigot hypocrites, and on judgment day they will surely experience a very harsh surprise, if God will.

Originally Posted by marden

and the Hadiths

The Hadiths are in my humble opinion at best fairy-tales, and show more the internal sunnitic doctrine-fights than real history.

Originally Posted by marden

that they are convinced they will be guaranteed a place in Heaven if they die a martyr defending Islam or slaying the disbelievers or while fighting to get back Islamic land. The number of people who believe this and are willing to fight and die and slay in the way of Allah are sufficient in numbers to take over the world.

Really? I doubt that. Not even ten times as many as they are are enough to take over the world.

The only real martyrs are those that die at the hands of polytheists while they remained steadfast of their monotheistic faith and didn't give in to the physical pressure of the polytheists.

Those that today call themselves martyrs don't qualify for this and on judgment day they will have to justify their life, faith and deeds like everyone else, and the murder of innocents is definitely one of the gravest sins, so that they will have great difficulties of escaping hellfire.

Originally Posted by marden

Once everyone in the non-Muslim world understands what is generally the basis for Islamic expansion

I'm awaiting the day that you understand it. The basis for the islamic expansion was many-fold: 1. The already crippling roman and byzantine empires. 2. The harsh and brutal treatment and prosecution of christians, jews and anyone that wasn't on line with the catholic church back then, done using the machinery of the roman empire. 3. The appearance of an islamic might that had a simple monotheistic faith without clerics, at the beginning without doctrines, and whose military was able and willing to help out if asked to do so. 4. The islamic trade-campaigns and cultural exchanges.

Originally Posted by marden

and jihad then we will be closer to recognizing and honoring the peaceful nature of most Muslims while recognizing the true threat of others.

Jihad is the best part of the Quran-message, and I would wish that all muslims would do their jihad in order to get rid of radical Islamism. Jihad means to do your best and give your all to live God's message and to travel on God's path, it means to love the next like yourself, it means to do your best to help the poor and needy, it means to guard against evil and if attacked by evil, to protect and defend against evil.

Jihad means the internal struggle in the soul to defeat the devil and to overcome egoisms and sins, and instead to live righteousness, mercyfulness and love for God, his message and humans.

Originally Posted by marden

Then we may no longer hear idiotic comments from people like Rosie O'Donnell who says things like radical Christianity is just as dangerous as radical Islam. She may be wanting to honor the peaceful Muslims but she is unduly whitewashing a real threatening segment of the Islamic population.

No, she is absolutely right, radical christianity, radical judaism and radical Islam all share the same ideology and sentiment, namely to do everything in order to establish theocracies and to abolish secularism, so that God's law can again reign and not human's law.

Some time in the future, in a hundred year or so, they might even jump over their shadows and allie their forces, in order to defeat the bigger enemy, the modern secular world.

Taliesin

[Cody Dawg]

Taliesan

The harsh and brutal treatment and prosecution of christians, jews and anyone that wasn't on line with the catholic church back then, done using the machinery of the roman empire.

Sounds like the Muslims learned very well since that's what Islam symbolizes today: Violence against non-Muslims and all women...

...as evidenced by Sayf-Allah's signature.

[itai195]

Originally Posted by placebo1969

So let me get this straight. The Pope says something that is perceived negative about Islam and Muslims react with violence? Like Millennium said, it does nothing but feed into the negative stereotypes of Muslims. It just doesn't make sense.

I agree. The Pope's speech was a bit clumsy but I don't think he meant to criticize Islam specifically, just to use the quote to establish a theme about religion and violence. I am sure prominent Muslims never say anything inflammatory about Jews and Christians?

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

I haven't kept abreast of poli lounge developments, there was too much iPod speculation going on for me to worry about the world. But now, with the disappointing nano release, it's time for me to come vent my rage here.

Let the games begin!

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by placebo1969

So let me get this straight. The Pope says something that is perceived negative about Islam and Muslims react with violence? Like Millennium said, it does nothing but feed into the negative stereotypes of Muslims. It just doesn't make sense.

1. Where's the violence?

2. Why judge all Muslims for the acts of few? (as per usual)

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Honestly, I don't care if someone is a Scientologist, Christian Scientist (oxymoron there), Jew, Muslim, Christian, or a Jaine from India. To be honest, come to think of it, we would all do better if we took a lesson or two from the Jaines.

But, I do want to say VW/Sayf-Allah that your signature is one of the most idiotic things I've ever seen and you know what?

YOU perpetuate the idea that the West should abhor and despise Muslims because of their hateful rhetoric - because of your "signature."

You're welcome.

[Sky Captain]

Here's some violence
If this is anything like the muhammed cartoons, it's soon to get real ugly.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by itai195

I agree. The Pope's speech was a bit clumsy but I don't think he meant to criticize Islam specifically, just to use the quote to establish a theme about religion and violence. I am sure prominent Muslims never say anything inflammatory about Jews and Christians?

Really? Is that why he quoted this:

Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.

How is this anything but an attack on Islam?

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

Here's some violence
If this is anything like the muhammed cartoons, it's soon to get real ugly.

They are being idiotic. Not violent.

IMHO.

[yakkiebah]

Pope's remarks recall cartoon crisis
Copenhagen - Pope Benedict XVI's comments linking Islam with violence have angered the Muslim world in a clash reminiscent of protests over cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed printed in Denmark a year ago.

In a university lecture in Germany on Tuesday, the pope implicitly denounced connections between Islam and violence, particularly with regard to jihad, or "holy war".

Pakistan's parliament on Friday unanimously called on the pope to retract his remarks, which had "injured sentiments across the Muslim world", while in India the head of the minorities commission said the pope sounded like a medieval crusader.

Abdel Monem Aboul Foutouh, a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt's main opposition group, said he expected "an extreme reaction" to the pope's comments, which were "more offensive to Islam than the caricatures because they come from a leader representing millions of people and not a journalist."

A grenade exploded on Friday near the oldest church in Gaza City, causing no casualties or damage. Palestinians were due to demonstrate later Friday in Gaza against the pope's remarks. More...

So we can expect a more extreme reaction then we've seen with the cartoons?

Awesome.

[itai195]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah

Really? Is that why he quoted this:

How is this anything but an attack on Islam?

It's just a quote, you have to take it in the context of his speech. One does not have to agree with a source in order to quote it.

[yakkiebah]

Of course it's an ATTACK(!) against islam. The pope is a blood thirsty crusader!

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by itai195

It's just a quote, you have to take it in the context of his speech. One does not have to agree with a source in order to quote it.

C'mon..... He was criticising what in his mind is the link between Islam and war. That is Jihad ("Holy War" western translation).

If he wanted to make his point in a better way perhaps he should not have quoted a Christian despot and instead quoted OBL. But he chose his words carefully like leaders always do. This was a calculated attack on Islam in a desperate attempt to find more support for Catholicism in Germany. Islam is the fastest growing religion in the West and he like many other Christian leaders is afraid of that development.

[itai195]

I'm more inclined to agree with the earlier point that he's more afraid of secularism than anything.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by yakkiebah

Of course it's an ATTACK(!) against islam. The pope is a blood thirsty crusader!

Well, Ratzinger was the head of the inquisition. Perhaps you need to read up on their past before seeing the connection?

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by itai195

I'm more inclined to agree with the earlier point that he's more afraid of secularism than anything.

Perhaps. But then maybe he should have attacked that instead of Islam. Since he has so much respect for Islam......

[yakkiebah]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah

Well, Ratzinger was the head of the inquisition. Perhaps you need to read up on their past before seeing the connection?

Holy ****! How old is this guy? He is like yoda?

Seriously. We are living in 2006. MOVE THE **** ON!

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by yakkiebah

Holy ****! How old is this guy? He is like yoda?

Seriously. We are living in 2006. MOVE THE **** ON!

Calm down please. Next you'll start throwing in personal attacks in your posts.

You think someone who headed the office of the Inquisition is an open minded person?

[itai195]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah

Perhaps. But then maybe he should have attacked that instead of Islam. Since he has so much respect for Islam......

The majority of his speech did attack secularism. I don't think he attacked Islam so much as he criticized the irrationality of militant Islam to make a point. Yeah he could have used Christian or Jewish militancy as examples as well, but those aren't really current issues and people would not comprehend them as well.

Look at me, defending a speech I disagree with... what is the world coming to?

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by itai195

The majority of his speech did attack secularism. I don't think he attacked Islam so much as he criticized the irrationality of militant Islam to make a point. Yeah he could have used Christian or Jewish militancy as examples as well, but those aren't really current issues and people would not comprehend them as well.

Look at me, defending a speech I disagree with... what is the world coming to?

Militant Islam?

Have you actually read the part he quoted?

[itai195]

That's my interpretation. You have to take the quote in context with the rest of his speech.

[yakkiebah]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah

Calm down please. Next you'll start throwing in personal attacks in your posts.

You think someone who headed the office of the Inquisition is an open minded person?

I'm calm. I just like to use the words **** and ****.

I've recieved plenty of insults from you in the past. I don't think i ever cared or complained about them.

Look, i'm not a fan of the pope or catholicism(or any other form of christianity) and i don't care if he is open minded or not. I don't expect him to be.The previous pope, John Paul Part 2, opposed and critized a whole bunch of things. Do i need to burn an effigy everytime a pope voices his dislike of secularism, abortion or feminism? No, he has every right to say whatever he wants unless it's ACTUAL hate speech like advocating killing of certain groups of people. You know, like throwing homosexuals off cliffs.

[Cody Dawg]

Only homosexual lemmings.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by pooka

Man, I say this with all respect, but both Muslims and Christians can be super retarded sometimes. Pussies too.

"Someone said something bad about your faith? Awww. Poor thing! That's terrible? What? They said your mother was like a bowling ball? Stick 3 fingers in her then throw her in the gutter? My goodness! What's that? That bad Persian man wants to wipe your country off the map? The nerve..."

Man, let your nuts drop and stop letting WORDS pain you so much.

The kittylove doth speaketh the truth.

Go forth and speak my name, SEK, the prophet.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah

You think someone who headed the office of the Inquisition is an open minded person?

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah

Well, Ratzinger was the head of the inquisition. Perhaps you need to read up on their past before seeing the connection?

Inquisition...? no such thing exists. Or are you about to give me further lessons about the Catholic Church

Whatever your knowledge of Islam is, you don't know squat about Catholicism. Save yourself the embarrassment and don't pretend to know what you're talking about when you talk about the Catholic Church.

V

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by voodoo

Inquisition...? no such thing exists. Or are you about to give me further lessons about the Catholic Church

Actually, before becoming Pope, he was the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which used to head up the Inquisition. So he's not really that far off....

[Cody Dawg]

Whatever your knowledge of Islam is, you don't know squat about Catholicism. Save yourself the embarrassment and don't pretend to know what you're talking about when you talk about the Catholic Church.

Right on, voodoo.

[Chuckit]

You think I'm violent? COME OVER HERE AND SAY THAT AGAIN!

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah

Did you read what he said?

Here, I'll highlight it for you:



Keep your blind faith in Joseph Alois Ratzinger and the hate he preaches. But don't for one second think that we as Muslims will accept this constant hatespeech coming from so-called "respected" members of society. Because that isn't going to happen.

Yes, and I agree (to a point). What the Manuel II is saying is that much of the good teaching is islam was in fact originally Judaeo-Christian. What was added in Islam, that has no parallel in Christian teaching is 'conersion by the sword'. In Christianity, 'those who live by the sword, die by the sword' but in Islam the sword is an accepted way in which one can convert others. I don't think, from what I've seen of the text (which comprises only a select few quotes), that it warrants the epithet 'a mediaeval hate text'

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah

And what track record? Please elaborate.

You pointed at your signature earlier in this thread. I point at it now. I could also point at your posts from your time here, many of which are impressively confrontational.

No, you are showing exactly why speech as his is dangerous. You believe that just because a Muslim says something like what I did, it means that I'm going to use violence.

No, I don't believe that your threat is sincere because you're a Muslim. I believe your threat is sincere because you have been extremely confrontational over your time here, you have one of the most impressively hateful signatures I've ever seen, and you take great pride in pointing it out.

And that is exactly why I speak out against such hate speech.

You speak out against hate speech with a sig like that? Hypocrite.

[undotwa]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

The pope wanted to make a point, that faith and violence aren't compatible, but let's take it to the test. Let's imagine God had ordered prophet Muhammad and his followers in polytheistic Arabia not to react to the war started against them by polytheistic Mecca, ie. to be strictly pacifistic and not to defend themselves. What would have happened? The polytheistic Meccans would have killed prophet Muhammad and his followers, and Arabia would have remained polytheistic with generations of people dying and coming into hell.

Where's the love in that pacifism?

Well the polytheistic Romans killed the 'prophet Jesus' and many of his followers (all but one of the 12 disciples). Jesus, who never advocated violence as a means to achieving one's ends, seemed to have done well with 'pacificism'.

BTW, I regret that I cannot spend more time in this thread as I'm very busy at the moment. I wish the pope said these comments in 2 months time, when I would have the time to argue in more depth!

[placebo1969]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah

1. Where's the violence?

2. Why judge all Muslims for the acts of few? (as per usual)

1. I feel burning images of the Pope is violent. However, you responded to someone else that you disagree.

2. I didn't and haven't done that. I'm asking questions.

To anyone, not just Sayf-Allah:
I think there is a failure of some Muslims to see the irony in the situation here.

[ink]

Originally Posted by Millennium

You speak out against hate speech with a sig like that? Hypocrite.

Which is what most Muslims are that deride the Pope speaking the truth, and yet say nothing when a Mullah utters much more hateful rhetoric against Christians, atheists, Hindi and Jews.

[Spliffdaddy]

Taliesin is that thin, rusty wire which holds the door caging my anger toward Islam.

Who says one person can't make a difference?

Sayf-Allah, on the other hand, is a DeWalt reciprocating saw with a 12" bi-metal blade.

[vmarks]

May I point out that Sayf-Allah means "Sword of Allah" ?

Now, anyone reflect on why that nickname might of been chosen and what a coincidence it is that the Pope has chosen to quote someone on the spread of Islam by the sword, violence?

I wonder if I'll be threatened again, as I was when Sayf-Allah told me I was going to "get what I deserve" and that he couldn't wait.

http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...ve#post2918659

http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...=1#post2900837

Wherein the person calling himself Sayf-Allah said:

Originally Posted by vonWrangell

I show forgiveness and kindness to those that deserve it. You don't. Simple as that.

And it is because you are completely unable to see that that you will have more problems in the future than you've ever had.

You will all get what you deserve in the end and I can't wait for it to happen.

[marden]

Originally Posted by vmarks

May I point out that Sayf-Allah means "Sword of Allah" ?

Now, anyone reflect on why that nickname might of been chosen and what a coincidence it is that the Pope has chosen to quote someone on the spread of Islam by the sword, violence?

I wonder if I'll be threatened again, as I was when Sayf-Allah told me I was going to "get what I deserve" and that he couldn't wait.

http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...ve#post2918659

http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...=1#post2900837

Wherein the person calling himself Sayf-Allah said:

[ShortcutToMoncton]

..wait. Marden's abe, right? Or mojo? Or whatever he is?

greg

[Kerrigan]

A good analysis by The Times (London):

...The Vatican insists that no offence was intended but those who are looking for offence will never be easily appeased. Already links are being made with supposed Western hostility to Islam. Like the Danish cartoons, the Pope’s words provide a golden opportunity for Islamist militants to inflame the millions who have no access to his full speech with a distorted interpretation of his words and his intentions.

Given current sensitivities, however, all this is scarcely surprising. Too many extremists are ready to over-interpret any comment or perceived slight and that reaction is magnified by the technological wonder that is the internet. The Vatican should know this. It might have been wiser if the Pope has excised from his speech any remark, especially a quotation about the Prophet Muhammad, that could be taken out of context by those for whom ecumenism is anathema.

The Pope and the Prophet - Comment - Times Online

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

..wait. Marden's abe, right? Or mojo? Or whatever he is?

greg

Not according to the IP addresses, or the writing style.

The only similarity I see is the proliferation of posts lately.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by vmarks

Not according to the IP addresses, or the writing style.

The only similarity I see is the proliferation of posts lately.

Agreed. The style isn't Abe/Mojo's. As I said earlier ... seems more like Pachead to me. Having said that, there are multiple users of the Abe/Mojo accounts, so it's entirely possible that this is one of the less common users.

[vmarks]

Okay, let's get back on topic. This isn't about abe/mojo/etc.

Marden has been around before aberdeen, has different IPs, and isn't similar in writing style to Pachead either.

Now, about the Pope's words.

He quoted someone. He has for some time considered Islam to have had little to add to the message that Catholics adhere to. Is what he said a surprise?

[marden]

What I think is interesting is that your moderator is threatened and no one says a word. Have none of you any shame? I thought everyone would stand up in outrage.

Maybe I have the wrong forum. This must be a French site.

[red rocket]

I'd like to point out that Ratzinger's words have been mistranslated.

I heard him on the radio, and he said "Schlechtes und Inhumanes". Schlecht means bad, not evil. Human in German does not mean human in English, it means humane. There's a difference.

Can't believe I'm apologising for Pope Ratty, but there you go.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by undotwa

Yes, and I agree (to a point). What the Manuel II is saying is that much of the good teaching is islam was in fact originally Judaeo-Christian. What was added in Islam, that has no parallel in Christian teaching is 'conersion by the sword'. In Christianity, 'those who live by the sword, die by the sword' but in Islam the sword is an accepted way in which one can convert others. I don't think, from what I've seen of the text (which comprises only a select few quotes), that it warrants the epithet 'a mediaeval hate text'

What many don't understand is that God didn't intent for the Quran to bring anything new, but only the same divine message that God is one and therefore polytheism abhored, that God created everything (if through a one-time-creation or through evolution doesn't matter and the parts in the Quran dealing with creation can be read in both ways), that God intends to ressurect everyone on judgment day and punish in hell forever the evildoers and reward in paradise forever the good-doers, and that the messengers from Adam to Muhammad were sent as a sort of help, a sort of guide, as warners and joy-promisers, so that the humans would know what God expects from them (love/respect/believe in/for God, loving the next, helping the needy, repenting sins and praying for forgivance and guidance..) and so that we humans can't say that we have never heard of God and his path.

There is nothing new, and that's what the Quran stresses again and again, that it is the same message God gave to numerous other peoples throughout the ages, only then in the arabic language.

There is no conversion by the sword command in the Quran, fighting was a necessety in a war waged against prophet Muhammad and his followers, and "Jihad" definetly doesn't mean what certain islamic empires interpreted into, in order to help their empire-needs.

Sura 9 is the most "violent" sura in the Quran and its clear that it has a historical context, where the war started by polytheistic Mecca was in its last and most dangerous phase and a state with law and order had to be secured. In order to underline the aspect of historic contextuality it not only made numerous references to Mecca and to help the prophet in doing that or that, it also is the only sura without the title "In the name of God, the merciful, the forgiving".

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by undotwa

Well the polytheistic Romans killed the 'prophet Jesus' and many of his followers (all but one of the 12 disciples). Jesus, who never advocated violence as a means to achieving one's ends, seemed to have done well with 'pacificism'.

Not really comparable at all. Jesus was sent to the jews in order to bring them Back to God's path, his mission was a short one, as the jews already were monotheists and needed only a modification of wrong traditions and wrong interpretations and not a complete new ground, and while christians were indeed persecuted as can be read here:

There were three basic periods of the persecution. The first was from the death of Christ until right before the Great Fire of 64 A.D., which Nero falsely blamed Christians for. However, this first persecution "was a mere afterthought, and did not result in any general proscription" (Cary and Scullard, p. 487). The second period lasted from the end of the first until around 250 A.D., and the final one spanned the years from 250/251, the persecution under Decius, until 313. Up until 250, the persecution was sporadic and localized. However, from 250-251 the Emperor Decius instituted what Michael Grant, an eminent classical historian, calls a "systematic persecution of the Christians" (Grant, p. 157). During this persecution, Decius even executed Pope Fabianus, after which he supposedly remarked: "I would far rather receive news of a rival to the throne than of another bishop in Rome." After that martyrdom, Cyprian, the Bishop of Carthage, wrote this to the clergy in Rome:

My dear brothers, News of the death of my saintly fellow-bishop was still uncertain and information doubtful, when I received your letter brought by subdeacon Crementius, telling me fully of his glorious death. Then I rejoiced, as his admirable governing of the Church had been followed by a noble end. For this I share your gladness, as you honour the memory of so solemn and splendid a witness, communicating to us also the glorious recollection you have of your bishop, and offering us such an example of faith and fortitude. Indeed, harmful as the fall of a leader is to his subjects, no less valuable and salutary for his brethren is the example of a bishop firm in his faith... My wish, dearest brothers, is for your continued welfare. (The Christian Catacombs)

So, the Christians accepted martyrdoms with joy and sadness. Joy in the sense that their brother now abided with God in heaven, but sadness in the sense that their brother had been killed.

The Emperor Valerian instituted the state-sponsored persecution, which lasted for about three years, from 257-259. The final, and longest, state-sponsored persecution had its inception under Emperor Diocletian, and it lasted, in the western portion of the empire, for around two years, 303-305, and around eight years in the eastern portion, 303-311. Concerning this persecution, Michael Grant remarks: "As never before, the motive of the Great Persecution which began in 303 was the total extirpation of Christianity: it was a struggle to the death between the old and new orders" (Grant, p. 208). Eusebius, a famous Church historian and eyewitness to the persecution of Diocletian, speaks about it thus when he writes:

This was the nineteenth year of the reign of Diocletian in Dystrus [March] when the feast of the Saviour's passion was near at hand, and royal edicts were published everywhere, commanding that the churches [should] be razed to the ground, the scriptures destroyed by fire, those who held positions of honor degraded, and the household servants, if they persisted in the Christian profession, be deprived of their liberty.

And such was the first decree against us. But issuing [other] decrees not long after, the Emperor commanded that all the rulers of the churches in every place should be first put in prison and afterwards compelled by every device to offer sacrifice. (Medieval Sourcebook: Diocletian: Edicts Against The Christians)

The Christians were persecuted for a variety of reasons. First, they denied the basis for the Roman imperium (‘command, rule, empire, supreme power') by advocating that their God was the only real God. This denied the existence of the pagan Roman gods. These same Roman gods, in a sense, founded Rome, because according to legend and popular belief, Romulus, the offspring of the Roman god of war, Mars, founded the city of Rome in 753 B.C. This gave the Romans a divine basis for their temporal power. When the Christians denied the existence of Mars, they attacked the foundation of Roman power. Since they were attacking Roman authority and power, the Romans came to view Christians as a threat to the state. This was a view further exacerbated by Roman emperors, such as Nero, blaming fires and plagues on Christians. The Roman persecution of Christians was legal, but immoral. One reason it was legal was that the Christians attacked the pax deorum. The pax deorum (‘peace of the gods'), according to popular opinion, protected the Empire from troubles. This peace was preserved "by means of the appropriate ceremonies," such as the correct ritual sacrifices and worship (Ste Croix, p.246). In fact, many Roman histories relate stories of kings dethroned and cities destroyed for not sacrificing correctly. Also, these histories, which most Romans were familiar with, relate stories of people and cities, even Rome, saved for sacrificing and worshiping correctly. Because of these stories, Roman commoners, along with the Roman nobility, believed that this peace was essential to the continued security of Roman power. Since they believed that the keeping of this peace was essential, it was especially offensive to them when Christians refused to sacrifice to those gods. St. Justin the Martyr makes the Christian view of the Roman gods clear when he says, "Hence are we called atheists. And we confess that we are atheists, so far as gods of this sort are concerned, but not with respect to the most true God" (Justin Martyr). Believing this denial of the gods to be an attack upon Rome, many Romans despised Christians. During the reign of Decius, around 250 A.D., persecution for this reason reached its climax. Cary and Scullard, two Roman historians, write:

But in 250 the precarious safeguards of the Christians were swept away by the emperor Decius. In a wild attempt to crush the general insubordination and anarchy of his time and to create a greater unity within the Empire under its ruler, Decius expressly commanded all Christians to abjure their faith and to take part in the pagan worship of the Empire; in order to secure the pax deorum the Empire's loyalty to the old gods of Rome must be demonstrated (Cary and Scullard, p. 546).

Another reason that the persecution was legal was that Romans believed that the Christians were corrupting public morals. Even though some Romans did not respect Christian morals much, they still accused Christians of corrupting the public morals. Time after time, Christian rituals were perverted in the eyes of the Roman populace so that the people believed that Christianity was an immoral religion. Christians were accused of flagitia (‘heinous crimes') and scelera (‘wicked things') among other charges. Many of these charges stemmed from a misunderstanding of common Christian rituals. Partaking of the Lord's supper was mistaken as cannibalism, greeting each other with a holy kiss was looked upon as lechery, and the active seeking of martyrdom by a few Christians was applied to all its adherents. Minucius Felix charged:

Now the story about the initiation of young novices is as much to be detested as it is well known. An infant covered over with meal, that it may deceive the unwary, is placed before him who is to be stained with their rites: this infant is slain by the young pupil, who has been urged on as if to harmless blows on the surface of the meal, with dark and secret wounds. Thirstily - O horror! they lick up its blood; eagerly they divide its limbs. By this victim they are pledged together; with this consciousness of wickedness they are covenanted to mutual silence. (Felix)

Caecilius called Christianity a "religion of lust," Tacitus styled the religion "a pernicious superstition" and Christians "a class of men loathed for their vices" (Benko, p. 15, 55). The Emperor Nero, who was hated even by his own countrymen, blamed Christians for the Great Fire of 64 A.D., which many Romans blamed Nero himself for. Tacitus relates this story:

Therefore to scotch the rumour [that Nero had burned the city himself], Nero substituted as culprits, and punished with the utmost refinements of cruelty, a class of men, loathed for their vices, whom the crowd styled Christians. Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate, and the pernicious superstition was checked for a moment, only to break out once more, not merely in Judaea, the home of the disease, but in the capital itself, where all things horrible or shameful in the world collect and find a vogue. (Benko, p. 15)

Prior to this passage, Tacitus had himself implicated Nero as the culprit of the crime. However, it is obvious that Tacitus held no love for Christianity. This antipathy for Christians was common to many Romans of the time, and it caused many Romans to want Christians to be persecuted.

Another trait of Christians which greatly disturbed the Romans was the burning desire of some Christians for martyrdom. In fact, some of the most prominent figures in the early Church had a strong desire to be martyred. Ignatius, one of the most prominent early Church figures, wrote to the Romans that:

An auspicious beginning has certainly been made--if only I obtain the grace of taking due possession of my inheritance without hindrance. The truth is, I am afraid it is your love that will do me wrong. For you, of course, it is easy to achieve your object; but for me it is difficult to win my way to God, should you be wanting in consideration for me. Surely, I do not want you to court the good pleasure of men, but to please God, as indeed you do please Him. Yes, I shall never again have such an opportunity of winning my way to God, nor can you, if you remain quiet, ever have your name inscribed on a more glorious achievement. For, if you quietly ignore me, I am the word of God; but if you fall in love with my human nature, I shall, on the contrary, be a mere sound. Grant me no more than that you let my blood be spilled in sacrifice to God, while yet there is an altar ready. (Ignatius)

When Ignatius speaks of not courting the "good pleasure of men," he is beseeching the Romans not to appeal to their highly placed friends in order to stop them from killing Ignatius. The Romans did not understand why Christians would want to die. The desire of some Christians for martyrdom scared them, and caused them to think that the Christians were, by their desire for death, corrupting public morals.

Another part of Christianity which the Romans failed to understand was the Book of Revelations. It was seen as an attack against Rome, because the Romans believed that the city of Babylon referred to in Revelations was actually a poorly disguised reference to Rome. So, this book was viewed as anti-Roman propaganda, adding another nail to the coffin of Christianity in the minds of Romans.

The most common charge against Christians was simply being a Christian. Because of the widespread fabrications concerning the name, the title ‘Christian' had picked up a great deal of bad connotations. As the Church historian Tertullian relates:

What are we to think of it, that most people so blindly knock their heads against the hatred of the Christian name; that when they bear favourable testimony to any one, they mingle with it abuse of the name he bears? "A good man," says one, "is Gaius Seius, only that he is a Christian." So another, "I am astonished that a wise man like Lucius should have suddenly become a Christian." Nobody thinks it needful to consider whether Gaius is not good and Lucius wise, on this very account that he is a Christian; or a Christian, for the reason that he is wise and good. They praise what they know, they abuse what they are ignorant of, and they inspire their knowledge with their ignorance; though in fairness you should rather judge of what is unknown from what is known, than what is known from what is unknown. (Tertullian)

Tertullian's righteous indignation at the spurious allegations made against Christians was common to members of the early Church. They could not believe that the Romans could so horribly misunderstand their holy rituals.

Yet another charge against the Christians was that they didn't follow in the footsteps of their ancestors. Romans, such as Cicero, held incredible respect for the auctoritas maiorum (‘authority of greater men'), the authority of ancestors. This authority meant that Romans should continue in the worship of the same gods which they had previously worshiped. In fact, the Jewish religion was tolerated in the Empire, even though it did not agree with the Roman state religion, because it was known to have existed for so long, in keeping with Jewish ancestors. However, the Christian religion was nova (‘new'), and it went against, in the view of Rome, the Jewish religion, thereby going against their ancestors. Not only did the Christians go against their Jewish ancestors, but also, by denying that the Roman gods existed, they went against the Roman ancestors - a double crime in the eyes of the Romans.

The legality of the Roman persecution was easily assured by their legal system. In the Roman judicial system, magistrates had nearly unlimited power. Because of this and because of the populace's antipathy toward Christians, magistrates persecuted Christians merely because the people wanted them to. This became one of the leading, if not the leading, reasons why Christians were oppressed. Also, because of the almost boundless power of those magistrates, it became one of the leading legal justifications for the persecution.

During the year 112 A.D., Pliny the Younger, governor of Bithynia (present day Turkey) was confused as to what he should do about the Christians in his province. So, in a letter to the Emperor Trajan, he wonders:

Whether the bare name, without any crimes besides, or the crimes adhering to that name, [deserves] to be punished? In the meantime, I have taken this course about those brought before me as Christians. I asked them whether they were Christians or not? If they confessed that they were Christians, I asked them again, and a third time, intermixing threatenings with the questions. If they persevered in their confession, I ordered them to be executed; for I did not doubt but, let this confession be of any sort whatsoever, this positiveness and inflexible obstinacy deserved to be punished. (From Jesus to Christ)

After this, he relates how he attempted to interrogate Christian prisoners as to the odious crimes which they were accused of. These interrogations turned out in the negative, for no matter what pressure was put on the questioned, they still refused to admit culpability for any of those crimes. So, the very crimes which Romans accused Christians of were proved false, once the Romans actually bothered to interrogate the Christians. In Trajan's reply, Trajan states that Pliny is not to let anonymous accusers accuse people of being Christians. If someone is to accuse, he must be publicly known as the accuser. This kept people from being randomly persecuted. "The practical effect of Trajan's rescript was that in the second century sporadic executions of Christians continued, although on the whole under Hadrian and Antoninus they enjoyed something of a lull during which the Church spread rapidly." (Cary and Scullard, p. 488).

Source: The Roman Persecution of Christians

.. the persecution was a persecution and not an outright genocidal war, laws were in place and christians were sporadically brought to the authorities, where some were executed and others tried to be linked to some crimes but failing to do so...

There is a huge difference between sporadic or even intense persecution and outright genocidal war, as well as there is a difference between a three-year prophet-mission preaching to monotheists and a 23-year prophet-mission preaching to polytheists.

Taliesin

[TETENAL]

The Pope apologized. Please close this thread.

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

The Pope apologized. Please close this thread.

May I be the first one to say, he shouldn't have!

I'm sick of this stupid so called "culture war".

Some old fart quotes what some dumbass said about a religious doctrine devised almost 2000 years ago…

/still no cure for cancer or AIDS
//in other news, a bag of rice just tipped over in China, – more at 11.

[Cody Dawg]

vmarks has been threatened?

I wonder if I'll be threatened again, as I was when Sayf-Allah told me I was going to "get what I deserve" and that he couldn't wait.

You know what? That's really creepy. The virtual is taking over reality. vmarks and the other moderators, even ones I disagree with from time to time, are all here doing this place a favor by moderating it and now we have a user threatening one of them who is giving his time and (usually) wise advice?



Everything else aside, I may disagree with others' religions, but I would never advocate someone being harmed over a belief system.

I, too, found Sayf-Allahs signature really off and strange and threatening and now that I know what his name is I wonder if he's the type of Muslim that advocates the beheadings of innocent people? Because now that I know what his signature means that's the image I have of him.

Terrorized on MacNN. How unbelievable.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah

: points to signature :

And how is that any better?

Seriously "Logic" you need to get out of the spiritual coma you are in.

And when I say that, I am not saying anything bad about Islam.