|
Bring Back John-Paul II (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Temperate |
I think what the pope was trying to get across was the way the two religions spread (Christianity and Islam).
On one hand, Christianity was spread passively. Through martyrdom and through the disciples spreading the word of Christ.
On the other hand, Islam, was spread "By the sword" as Mohammed put it. Conquests through north Africa and then through Spain and southern France.
I honestly don't know where the pope was trying to get to from that, but, I know it was definitely not in the context as the protesting Muslims are putting it in. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by Temperate
I think what the pope was trying to get across was the way the two religions spread (Christianity and Islam).
On one hand, Christianity was spread passively. Through martyrdom and through the disciples spreading the word of Christ.
On the other hand, Islam, was spread "By the sword" as Mohammed put it. Conquests through north Africa and then through Spain and southern France.
I honestly don't know where the pope was trying to get to from that, but, I know it was definitely not in the context as the protesting Muslims are putting it in. |
You obviously have a lot to learn about Islamic History. Here's a good place to start. |
|
|
| LazFX |
Z, can you clarify these, I know that surah 9 was written about certain happenings going on at the time, but is this the kind of passages that are being misconstrued on both sides to point out fears and rights in the current time's mess??
| quote: | Surah 9
1. "Ye cannot escape Allah. Allah will confound the disbelievers." 9:2
2. Give tidings (O Muhammad) of a painful doom to those who disbelieve. 9:3
3. Slay the idolaters wherever you find them. 9:5
4. Those who submit and convert to Islam will be treated well. (Those who don't submit will be killed. See previous verse.) 9:6
5. Don't make treaties with non-Muslims. They are all evildoers and should not be trusted. 9:7-9
6. Treat converts to Islam well. (Kill those who refuse to convert. See 9:5) 9:11
7. Fight the disbelievers! Allah is on your side; he will give you victory. 9:12-14
8. Don't let idolaters tend the sanctuaries. Their works are in vain and they will be burned in the Fire. 9:17
9. Don't make be friends with with your disbelieving family members. Those who do so are wrong-doers. 9:23
10. Allah punished those who disbelieved. 9:26
11. Only idolaters are unclean. Keep them away from your places of worship. 9:28
12. Fight against Christians and Jews "until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low." 9:29
13. Christians and Jews are perverse. Allah himself fights against them. 9:30
14. The "Religion of Truth" (Islam) must prevail, by force if necessary, over all other religions. 9:33
15. Give tidings (O Muhammad) of a painful doom to the rich and greedy Christian monks and Jewish rabbis. 9:34
16. Allah does not guide the disbelievers. 9:37
17. Fight for Allah with your wealth and whatever weapons are available to you. 9:41
18. Those who refuse to fight for Allah (claiming they are unable) are liars who have destroyed their souls. 9:42
19. Disbelievers go to hell. 9:49
20. Pay your contribution willingly. Allah will not accept a contribution from disbelievers or idlers. 9:53
21. Those who vex the Prophet, for them there is a painful doom. 9:60
22. Allah is only pleased by true believers. 9:62
23. Those who oppose Allah and His messenger will burn in the fire of hell. 9:63
24. Allah promises hypocrites and disbelievers the fire of hell. Allah curses them. They will have a lasting torment. 9:68
25. Fight the disbelievers and hypocrites. Be harsh with them. They are all going to hell anyway. 9:73
26. Allah will afflict disbelievers with a painful doom in this world and the Hereafter. 9:74
27. God will not forgive disbelievers, so don't ask. 9:80
28. Those who refuse to give their wealth and lives to Allah will face the fire of hell. 9:81-83
29. Don't pray for dead disbelievers or attend their funerals. 9:84
30. Those who refuse to fight for Allah will be treated (along with their children) as unbelievers. 9:85
31. For disbelievers there will be a painful doom. 9:90
32. The unbelieving Arabs will be punished by Allah with an evil fortune. 9:97-98, 101
33. Stay away from non-Muslims. They are all liars. 9:107
34. Believers must fight for Allah. They must kill and be killed , and are bound to do so by the Torah, Gospel, and Quran. But Allah will reward them for it. 9:111
35. Don't pray for idolaters (not even for your family) after it is clear they are people of hell-fire. 9:113
36. Abraham disowned his father for being an enemy of Allah. 9:114
37. Fight disbelievers who are near you, and let them see the harshness in you. 9:123
38. Disbelievers are wicked and have diseased hearts. 9:125
39. Allah turns away those who misunderstand him. 9:127 |
|
|
|
| Temperate |
I know much about islamic history, and, unfortunately alot of it revolved around conquest, take the holy land for instance. Blame the interpretation of certain leaders, not the religion itself. If you bothered to look at my posts in the book recommendation thread, you will see that I have read quite a few books about islamic history, many of which are partial to the religion. So please, take your disinformation somewhere else. |
|
|
| trancaholic |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
Just doing his bit for Islamo-Christian relations I guess. |
A bit of happenings from the last month:
Molotov cocktail against Christian activist’s home in Bethlehem
TWO CHALDEAN PRIESTS KIDNAPPED IN BAGHDAD
COPTS LOSE HOMES, FREEDOM OVER MURDER CHARGE
ANGRY MOB ATTACKS CHURCH IN ACEH
MUSLIM MILITANTS ATTACK CHRISTIAN MISSIONARY SCHOOL
FOUR AFRICAN CHRISTIANS DEPORTED
MUSLIM LAND-GRABBERS ATTACK CHRISTIANS
CHRISTIAN COBBLER KNIFED FOR OFFHAND COMMENT
(And, no, official organized moderate Islam has not denounced any of this.)
Can you really blame the Pope - who is the head of the Christian Catholic Church, and not a politician - for (vaguely) suggesting that Islam is spread by the sword? I'm no fan of Christianity (by far), but I certainly think that it is commendable for a leader to react with concern and aggrevation when his subjects are persecuted. In fact, i even find his reaction a bit too cautious: The proper reaction would be stark condemnation, and direct talks with the rulers of the countries where these attacks take place all too frequently.
| quote: | Originally posted by tathi
heh Islam would not have even caused a tenth of the deaths, suffering, and attrocities that Christianity has been directly and indirectly culpable for throughout history :rolleyes: |
So because of that he cannot give a talk on the matter?
About the "tenth of the deaths" part of your post: Do you have any concrete statistics for backing this up? I would personally have guessed that the Armenian genocide, the Islamic conquests prior to the crusades, the Turkish conquests, and the recent events involving Sunni/Shia battles or the "war" in Darfur would boost the numbers of Islamic related deaths quite a bit? Are you counting the deaths due to Hitler and Stalin under the Christianity umbrella?
| quote: | Originally posted by tathi
For this leg of the race Islams ahead in the killing and bombing people department but they've still got a good 600 years of rape, pillage, and murder to catch up to those good ol' Christians; oh and those sneaky Catholics are sodomising Africa with AIDS which cancells out those who've died in Darfur so they're pretty much neck and neck in that part of the world. |
So, until Muslims kill as many people as Christians have ever done, they should be exempt from criticism from any Christian? What about us non-believers: By the same token, shouldn't we be allowed to off a few millions of both of the camps before any of them can object?
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
Not sure if you count the US government as "Christians" (I would), but: |
Do you seriously consider these deaths to be deaths for the advancement of Christianity/spurred by Christian teachings? I know that Bush believes God is acting through him, but what about Congress? The allies in the coalition? The jerks voting Bush into office again? My guess at the main motivations would have been the battle for energy, belief in the superiority of democracy, or fear. Heck, on the list of reasons for going to war I'd even put the assassination attempt at Bush Senior before spreading Christianity/defending God's values/whatever. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by Temperate
I know much about islamic history, and, unfortunately alot of it revolved around conquest, take the holy land for instance. Blame the interpretation of certain leaders, not the religion itself. If you bothered to look at my posts in the book recommendation thread, you will see that I have read quite a few books about islamic history, many of which are partial to the religion. So please, take your disinformation somewhere else. |
I took a look at it. One book doesn't constitute having an understanding of the history of a region. How many books have you read by Middle Eastern scholars? Have you verified fact from nultiple sources (which are not mainly Western)? Have you considered evaluating multiple analysis and historical view points via comparison. May want to consider referring to more than just one or a few sources to get a more informed and more objective view point.
Anyways, I don't see the point in refuting or engaging in an argument with someone who's accusing me of spreading "disinformation" before I even said a thing on the subject. You're in effect calling me a liar before I even said a thing. Thanks for demonstrating your open mindedness, it saved me alot of time. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by LazFX
Z, can you clarify these, I know that surah 9 was written about certain happenings going on at the time, but is this the kind of passages that are being misconstrued on both sides to point out fears and rights in the current time's mess?? |
Just as a rule of thumb, if you're interested in understanding what a particular surah means, isolated verses lacking context of the entirety of the Surah, as well as a lack of knowledge or understanding of historical context certainly isn't going to help you the at the least, and is likely to lead to a complete misunderstanding. If you want me to address it in much greater detail, I'll be happy to do so. But at the moment I'm in the lab working on my Networking homework so I'm kind of busy. It's not something I can cover in a few minutes or even a couple of hours.
EDIT: One thing you must keep in mind is that in Islam, a militaristic manifestation of "Jihad" is purely a response to agression or genuine offensive threat and is completey defensive in nature. There are also several conditions and rules or combat you must respect when engaging in Jihad, for instance, you cannot target women, children, the old, property, or any non-combative personal in any shape or form. "Collateral damage" isn't excusible for example. Other forbiden actions are things such as tortue, mistreatement of prisoners of war etc. So every time you heard the word "Jihad" being interchangeably use for terroism is nothing more than a misuse of the term, as the nature of terrorism violates many of the fundamental rules of militaristic Jihad. It isn't terribly different in spirit from the Geneva Convention. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
no, i wouldnt. yes, the US is christian, but i would label the current conflicts as political or economic in nature, rather than religious. i mean, the US isnt in iraq because somebody drew some offensive pictures or labelled jesus as a bloodthirsty heathen.
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
EDIT: One thing you must keep in mind is that in Islam, a militaristic manifestation of "Jihad" is purely a response to agression or genuine offensive threat and is completey defensive in nature. There are also several conditions and rules or combat you must respect when engaging in Jihad, for instance, you cannot target women, children, the old, property, or any non-combative personal in any shape or form. "Collateral damage" isn't excusible for example. Other forbiden actions are things such as tortue, mistreatement of prisoners of war etc. So every time you heard the word "Jihad" being interchangeably use for terroism is nothing more than a misuse of the term, as the nature of terrorism violates many of the fundamental rules of militaristic Jihad. |
whilst you may be right, there are obviously plenty of people that adhere to a different definition than you. |
|
|
| Temperate |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
I took a look at it. One book doesn't constitute having an understanding of the history of a region. How many books have you read by Middle Eastern scholars? Have you verified fact from nultiple sources (which are not mainly Western)? Have you considered evaluating multiple analysis and historical view points via comparison. May want to consider referring to more than just one or a few sources to get a more informed and more objective view point.
Anyways, I don't see the point in refuting or engaging in an argument with someone who's accusing me of spreading "disinformation" before I even said a thing on the subject. You're in effect calling me a liar before I even said a thing. Thanks for demonstrating your open mindedness, it saved me alot of time. |
I cross-reference the books that I read, and that facts that I am presented more times in one day than most americans do in a lifetime. In my eyes, I see it as an addiction, but a healthy one, at best. I won't present a fact until I have cross-referenced it with reliable sources at least once. This comes from being wrong, as opposed to being skeptic.
Now, having that said, I won't argue with some with who tells me that I spread disinformation, but in a much nicer context. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by Temperate
Now, having that said, I won't argue with some with who tells me that I spread disinformation, but in a much nicer context. |
You're even stupider than I thought if you somehow managed to infer that from my post. Can't blame you, you're still a kid in high school. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by Temperate
On one hand, Christianity was spread passively. Through martyrdom and through the disciples spreading the word of Christ. |
Just to demonstrate your utter ignorance (this particular comment which I wanted avoid addressing earlier), I guess the plight of the Native American and their forced conversion as well as the Spanish inquisition are perfect examples of that right? |
|
|
| Renegade |
| quote: | Originally posted by trancaholic
Can you really blame the Pope - who is the head of the Christian Catholic Church, and not a politician - for (vaguely) suggesting that Islam is spread by the sword? I'm no fan of Christianity (by far), but I certainly think that it is commendable for a leader to react with concern and aggrevation when his subjects are persecuted. In fact, i even find his reaction a bit too cautious: The proper reaction would be stark condemnation, and direct talks with the rulers of the countries where these attacks take place all too frequently. |
Just for the record, I posted that quote before the recent backlash started. And no, I don't fully blame the pope for what has happened here. The incidents you linked to are inexcusable by any standard and I'm not about to play apologist for the deluded deads who perpetrated them.
Nonetheless the fact remains that for the pope to reference a quote like that during a religious sermon in the current political climate is, at best, "tactless". The quote was certainly tangential to his overall address and I sincerely doubt that he was attempting to attack the religion of Islam with its inclusion, but it was still a clumsy thing to say and the reaction - though completely unjustified - was hardly unforseeable either.
I think the president of the Islamic Council of Victoria put it best (also an example of a moderate Muslim coming out in condemnation of the reaction to the speech):
| quote: | Pope Benedict's speech was an academic address at a German university on an esoteric theological theme that had nothing to do with affronting Muslims.
[...]
The trouble with being the Pope is that you are simultaneously a theologian and a politician. Theological discourse is regularly nuanced and esoteric. Political discourse is not.
[...]
In political terms, his choice was poor. He was naive not to recognise how offensively it would translate into the crudeness of the public conversation, and should at least have made clear that he was not endorsing Manuel II's words. |
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opini...8431582819.html
The fact is that this could have been avoided had the issue been treated with more sensitivity. I'm not saying that western commentators should feel the need to tip-toe around sincere discussions of Islam just to avoid inciting groups of radicals to riot from half the world away, but surely anyone with even a passing knowledge of current events could have seen this sort of reaction coming? Was there any need for this at all?
| quote: | | Do you seriously consider these deaths to be deaths for the advancement of Christianity/spurred by Christian teachings? |
No, of course not. I was responding to a quote about the number of innocents killed by Muslims vs the number killed by Christians in "post-modernity". Although Bush doesn't start wars in the name of Jesus, his example shows us that Islamic extremists hardly hold a monopoly on resorting to indiscriminate violence. |
|
|
|
|
