An Islamic Response to Pope Benedict XVI

Muslims all around the world were upset and outraged at the recent incident involving Pope Benedict XVI. The controversy began on 12 September 2006, when he presented a lecture entitled “Faith, Reason and the University — Memories and Reflections” at the University of Regensburg in Germany, where he was previously a professor of theology. Without refuting or repudiating it, he had quoted from the Byzantine emperor Manuel II Pleologus who was reported to have said thus:

    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.

Certainly there is no reason why a Muslim who knows his religion would not be outraged at the words cited from a medievel emperor, and it is justifiably so. What we would like to know is, how could Pope Benedict XVI have quoted from a power-crazy emperor whose hostility towards Islam was well-known? As the person considered as the “Vicar of Christ” leading a majority of the world’s Christian population who ascribe to the Catholic faith, the Pope should be promoting peace and harmony between the two faiths.

The Pope should know better than to ascribe Islam to the stereotypical image of violence and the sword. It was the historical scholar De Lacy O’Leary who refuted this imagery by stating that:

“History makes it clear however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myth that historians have ever repeated.” 1

In the eleventh century, the Western Christians thought the time had come to turn the tables of history. The Crusades were launched with disastrous consequences to Christian-Muslim and Muslim-Christian relations.His predecessor, Pope Urban II, was the person who first coined the term “holy war” (which, it should be noted, is alien to Muslim thought) and who first issued the edict inciting the Christian governments of Europe to wage war against the Muslims in the Middle East.

In his speech, Pope Urban II called for colonization of the Muslim world:

For you must hasten to carry aid to your brethren dwelling in the East, who need your help, which they have often asked. For the Turks, a Persian people, have attacked them I exhort you with earnest prayer – not I, but God – that, as heralds of Christ, you urge men by frequent exhortation, men of all ranks, knights as well as foot soldiers, rich as well as poor, to hasten to exterminate this vile race from the lands of your brethren Christ commands it. And if those who set out thither should lose their lives on the way by land, or in crossing the sea, or in fighting the pagans, their sins shall be remitted. Oh what a disgrace, if a race so despised, base, and the instrument of demons, should so overcome a people endowed with faith in the all-powerful God, and resplendent with the name of Christ. Let those who have been accustomed to make private war against the faithful carry on to a successful issue a war against the infidels. Let those who for a long time have been robbers now become soldiers of Christ. Let those who fought against brothers and relatives now fight against these barbarians. Let them zealously undertake the journey under the guidance of the Lord.2

Professor of History, Joel T. Rosenthal, who contributed an article at Encarta Encyclopaedia states that:

They knew little about the Byzantine Empire or its religion, Eastern Orthodox Christianity. Few Crusaders understood or had much sympathy for the Eastern Orthodox religion, which did not recognize the pope, used the Greek language rather than Latin, and had very different forms of art and architecture. They knew even less about Islam or Muslim life. For some the First Crusade became an excuse to unleash savage attacks in the name of Christianity on Jewish communities along the Rhine.3

It should be noted that all Jews, Muslims and non-Catholic Christians were massacred during the Crusades, especially during the conquest of Jerusalam in the First Crusades War. When these “righteous” Crusaders arrived at Jerusalem, they had no mercy on the inhabitants, whether Muslims, Jews or their Christian brethren. Philip Schaff writes:

The scenes of carnage which followed belong to the many dark pages of Jerusalem’s history and showed how, in the quality of mercy, the crusading knight was far below the ideal of Christian perfection. The streets were choked with the bodies of the slain. The Jews were burnt with their synagogues…. As if to enhance the spectacle of pitiless barbarity, Saracen (i.e. Muslims) prisoners were forced to clear the streets of the dead bodies and blood to save the city from pestilence. “They wept and transported the dead bodies out of Jerusalem,” is the heartless statement of Robert the Monk. … “They cut down with the sword,” said William [archbishop] of Tyre, “every one whom they found in Jerusalem, and spared no one. The victors were covered with blood from head to foot.” In the next breath, speaking of the devotion of the Crusaders, the archbishop adds, “It was a most affecting sight which filled the heart with holy joy to see the people tread the holy places in the fervor of an excellent devotion.”4

Thus we should ask ourselves, by what criteria must this act be judged apart from calling it “evil and inhuman”, as the Pope did for Islam?

The Pope should also look at the history of the Spanish Inquisition which was issued (yet again!) by another predecessor of the current Pope, Pope Lucius III. This papal bull was carried out to the letter under the rule of the Catholic King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella, who drove thousands of Muslims and Jews out of the Iberian Peninsula at the fall of Granada in 1492, either by expelling them or forcibly converting them to Christianity. P. de Gayangos writes regarding Ximenes:

As a result of his endeavours, it is reported that on 8th December 1499 about three thousand Moors were baptized by him and a leading mosque in Granada was converted into a church. ‘Converts’ were encouraged to surrender their Islamic books, several thousands of which were destroyed by Ximenes in a public bonfire. A few rare books on medicine were kept aside for the University of Alcala.5

For eight centuries, Islam had been the faith not only of immigrant Arabs and Berbers but of native Spaniards who were always the majority. The “Inquisition” made no differentiation; and it brought to an end one of the most glorious chapters in the history of inter-religious living and co-operation.

It is also a historical fact that the Catholic Church in Germany and Italy had a mutual agreement with Hitler and Mussolini, and they were never condemned in their respective countries even though the “official” position of the Church was that Nazism is explicitly condemned. It is also a fact that there are photographs of Catholic priests, Lutheran ministers, and Catholic bishops and cardinals with Hitler and even giving the Hitler salute. Both men were responsible for heinious war crimes and genocides in their own nations as well as in the Second World War.

It seems that Christians are fixated with the image of the Crusades and the idea of a “holy war”. It was after all George Bush, a born-again Christian, in the aftermath of the horrendous September 11 attacks on New York who first used the word “crusade” in response to the 9/11 attack. “This crusade,” he said, “this war on terrorism.” Yet again it was twenty million Red Indians who were killed by Christians in the early history of the United States. Africans were also kidnapped by these so-call Christians to work in the cotton fields of the South and it was only after the American Civil War which only then ended slavery. Even so, discrimination of the Afro-Americans in North America persist until today.

Despite all the evidence above showing the ugliness of Christian history, the Pope still chooses to attack and demean Islam. On the contrary, there were non-Muslims who said good things about Islam. The philospher George Bernard Shaw said that:

“I have always held the religion of Muhammad in high estimation because of its wonderful vitality. It is the only religion which appears to me to possess that assimilating capacity to the changing phase of existence which can make itself appeal to every age. I have studied him – the wonderful man and in my opinion far from being an anti-Christ, he must be called the Savior of Humanity.

I believe that if a man like him were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world he would succeed in solving its problems in a way that would bring it the much needed peace and happiness: I have prophesied about the faith of Muhammad that it would be acceptable to the Europe of tomorrow as it is beginning to be acceptable to the Europe of today.”6

Mohandas K. Gandhi, the spiritual icon of India’s resistance movement, said in Young India:

“I wanted to know the best of one who holds today’s undisputed sway over the hearts of millions of mankind….I became more than convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet, the scrupulous regard for his pledges, his intense devotion to this friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every obstacle. When I closed the 2nd volume (of the Prophet’s biography), I was sorry there was not more for me to read of the great life.”

Michael H. Hart commented on the following on why he chose the Prophet Muhammad at the top of his list:

“My choice of Muhammad to lead the list of the world’s most influential persons may surprise some readers and may be questioned by others, but he was the only man in history who was supremely successful on both the religious and secular level.” 7

Lamartine best sums it up by saying:

“Philosopher, orator, apostle, legislator, warrior, conqueror of ideas, restorer of rational dogmas, of a cult without images; the founder of twenty terrestrial empires and of one spiritual empire, that is Muhammad. As regards all standards by which human greatness may be measured, we may well ask, is there any man greater than he?” 8

With all these comments by these eminent figures of the 20th century, what reason does the Pope have to quote from an ignorant, barbaric Byzantine emperor?

Conclusions

The damage that the Pope had done, whether consciously or unconsciously, have certainly reversed the peace-making efforts and bridging of relations by his predecessor, who was also the first Pope to step foot into a mosque when he visited the Umayyad Mosque in Damascus and paid a visit to the grave of the Prophet Yahya (John the Baptist). The current Pope is nowhere as magnamious as his predecessor and clearly he is trying to undo the efforts of the previous Pope.

However he should not be ignorant of facts. Freedom of expression should not include lies. The Pope should verify his facts, as the Qur’an tells us Muslims in Surah Hujurat, 49:6 as follows:

“O People who Believe! If any miscreant brings you some tidings, verify it, lest you unknowingly cause suffering to some people, and then remain repenting for what you did.”

And only God knows best! bismika-tombstone An Islamic Response to Pope Benedict XVI

Footnotes

  1. De Lacy O’Leary, Islam at the Crossroads, p. 8 []
  2. August C. Krey, The First Crusade: The Accounts of Eye Witnesses and Participants (Gloucester, Massachusetts: Peter Smith, 1958) []
  3. Joel T. Rosenthal, Encarta []
  4. Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Volume V, Chapter 7 []
  5. P de Gayangos, “Muhammadan Dynasties in Spain”, Vol. II. []
  6. The Genuine Islam, Vol. 1, No. 8, 1936 []
  7. Michael H. Hart, The 100: A Ranking of The Most Influential Persons in History, New York: Hart Publishing Company, Inc., 1978, p. 33 []
  8. Histoire De La Turquie, Paris, 1854, Vol. II, pp. 276-277 []

50 Comments

  1. “You would not have the above said things if you lived by the New Testament either. If you enjoy any kind of freedom in your country, bear in mind that it is not because of New Testament. If women in your country feel equality with men, it is because they fought for it, they shed their blood and tears for it. Racism and genocide have been the monopolies of the Bible and its followers. No other scriptures had showed the audacity to play with that fire. “eye-for-an-eye” ideology was first coined by no other scripture than your “Holy” Bible.”

    christIANITY IS DESPERATE RELIGION!

    she LIES

    This is definitely the weirdest question I have ever gotten about this chapter. Of course, even if correct these claims have nothing to do with my theory. But these claims are absurd. This is what the Greek of 1 Corinthians says:

    As in all the churches of the holy, let the women keep quiet in the churches, for it is not permitted for them to speak, and let them be subdued, as the law also says. But if any want to learn, let them ask their own husband at home, for it is shameful for a woman to speak in a church. Did the word of God come from you, or to you alone? If anyone thinks he is a prophet or a spiritual man, let him acknowledge that what I write to you is the commandment of the Lord. (1 Cor. 14:33-36)

    There is no plausible logical or grammatical basis for thinking 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is a quotation, or anything Paul is arguing against. It is not a question. To the contrary, this is plainly and beyond all reasonable doubt what he is asserting as instructions to the Corinthians (see the parallel construction: 1 Cor. 14:13, 14:26, 14:27, 14:28, 14:29, 14:30, 14:34, 14:35, 14:37). In fact, he says these instructions are the commandments of God (14:37), and not just his own opinions (in contrast to 1 Cor. 7:12 & 7:25). He repeatedly uses the imperative (and once uses the indicative of permission, but never the subjunctive or optative), and there is no verb putting any of this in indirect discourse. So this passage can never be understood as a quotation. Nor is any argument against his commandment to be found here.

    Many translations render verse 14:36 as “What? Did the Word of God come out from you? Or did it come unto you only?” but the word “What” is not in the Greek. I’ve also seen some exegetes try to interpret the masculine in 14:36 as a rebuke to men in the church, but the masculine was the inclusive case, and thus could include men and women, and there is no indirect statement here to rebuke anyone for. Instead, with 14:36 Paul is leading into verse 14:37. Paul is saying “Do you claim to be an authority? I’m telling you, these are the commandments of God!” In other words, Paul is being very adamant that verses 14:33-35 are (as with everything that came before them) instructions the Corinthians ought to be following. Though some think there is a contradiction here between this and Paul’s insistance that women pray and prophesy under a veil in 1 Corinthians 11:5, he does not say there that this was allowed in church. Here, he is adamant: in church, this was not to be tolerated at all.

    So, too, 1 Timothy, which says, “Let a woman learn in silence, in total submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence” (1 Tim. 2:11-12), because Eve led Adam to sin (2:13-15), the implication being that women will lead men to sin if they are allowed to teach or give orders to men, therefore they should shut the hell up and obey their husbands (Col. 3:18, Eph. 5:22-24 & 5:33; echoed by Titus 2:3-5 & 1 Pet. 3:1-6). So while this clearly does say women must not dominate men, it also says they are to sit in silence and never presume to teach anyone anything. In other words, he is saying they should shut up–unless what they have to say is totally submissive to the will of male authorities.

  2. Another great Response to the pope’s remarks on islam by our great scholars may allah perserve them

    Refuting the Pope

    The Clear Message in Refutation of the Words of the Leader of the Christians

    http://www.marifah.net/articles/pope-fawdah.pdf

  3. Lets keep it real, the crusades were not something to be proud of, they were another case of europe wishin to dominate the world…Whatever the crusaders did was a perversion of christianity it went against the ten commandments stating not to kill and to love thy neighbour etc, but the crusades happend along time ago, lets focus on the present; the gasing of whole towns by Suddam Hussein (a muslim) women, men and children (his own muslim people), the bombing of the twin towers that killed thousands of innocent people along with the bombings of the madrid trains, the barley bombings, the london bombings (that killed muslims, christians and jewsn alike), the killing of innocent nuns, the beaheading of catholic school children in ASIA, the burning of chruches across the muslim world, pakistani christian persecution, the persecution of christians in Eritrea (being held in metal containers with little air) irans want to extinguish the isreali state, the persecution of muslim converts in afganistan and the muslim world… the list goes on… isolated events carried out by those who dont understand islam, fundamentalist? ???????????? i think not- if so then islam has a lot of people who dont understand their religion. Muslims need to stop clinging on to the crusades, because their attacks on chritian countries (the western world) and christian people is exactly the same as the crusades in fact worse as they still havent seen the errors of their ways and persist in threatening the world with threats of another holocaust, and 9/11 so maybe muslims should start focusing on the present day… and their own actions eg (jihad) .

  4. A.R. said on 4 November 2006:”You ignored the EVIDENCE, which the brother provided (http://www.bismikaallahuma.org.....mment-2862) And may I ask why? The verse literally means “God fight them” and not “God kill them” as Shamoun who does not know Arabic claims. This “fighting” of course is not literal. Like one fights against a disease etc.”

    I have pretty much ignored the evidence your Brother provided. But my question remains valid – of the three main translations I have found, they picked a translation more in line with Shamoun’s claims than anyone else’s. Why is that?

    A.R. said on 4 November 2006:”Furthermore even if I agree with you for sake of argument the verse says: “GOD’S CURSE BE ON THEM” OR “GOD FIGHTS THEM” or “GOD DESTROYS THEM” God is just expressing his anger over their blasphemy.”

    How do you know? – and it is worth pointing out that at least one of those “blasphemies” is fictional in that Jews do not think Ezra was the Son of God.

    A.R. said on 4 November 2006:”The verse NOWHERE says that Christians should be killed for what they believe. Even if you want to agree with the translation: May Allah destroy them or slay them (although it does not mean that here) still we have to understand that God is able to destroy any one. He punishes the guilty with hell-fire and all religions say that the guilty will dwell in hell-fire.”

    Yes but it is a very short step from calling for God to kill someone and deciding ot help God by killing them for them. Arabs do not, after all, get up in the morning and greet their wife by saying “May God destroy you”. They do say such things about Israel though.

  5. PaakMaw said on 29 October 2006:”Anyway, it seems to me that the discussions with you seem to be “a tit for a tat”. I caution the Muslims to “keep away from arguing for the sake of arguing” (-Ibn Tamiyah).”

    By all means, if you cannot win, do not play. Islam has always relied on conquest in the past. Do you think that this attitude will serve Muslims in the present when even in Muslim countries they will have to deal with uppity kafirs who will not be silenced by threats?

    PaakMaw said on 29 October 2006:”I wonder what you have to say about the Malays in Indonesia and Malaysia being COERCED, in any way using yr fantastic, and at tines, hilarious imagination into your imaginarily ugly world of Islam.”

    I will point out that indeed, Malays and Indonesians were coerced into becoming Muslims. Admittedly in the early days there were conversions by example, by inter-marriage (pagans being tolerant and allowing Muslims to settle) and so on. But as soon as Islam took power it spread in Indonesia as it did everywhere else. The Europeans turned up in time to save Bali but not Java.

    PaakMaw said on 29 October 2006:”I will try (not very hard) to imagine how HeiGou’s fantastic imagination will work on my question to him. Tis as follows…

    PaakMaw said on 29 October 2006:”“Introduced by various traders and wandering mystics from India, Islam first gained a foothold between the twelfth and fifteenth centuries in coastal regions of Sumatra, northern Java, and Kalimantan. Islam probably came to these regions in the form of mystical Sufi tradition. Sufism easily gained local acceptance and became synthesized with local customs.

    PaakMaw said on 29 October 2006:”The introduction of Islam to the islands was nothing other than peaceful. As Islamized port towns undermined the waning power of the east Javanese Hindu/Buddhist Majapahit kingdom in the sixteenth century, Javanese elites FLED to Bali, where over 2.5 million people kept their own version of Hinduism alive. Unlike coastal Sumatra, where Islam was adopted by elites and masses alike, partly as a way to counter the economic and political power of the Hindu-Buddhist kingdoms.””

    Sure. The introduction of Islam was peaceful in Indonesia as it was in India itself. But of course Islam soon turned violent when it had the numbers and Buddhism and Hinduism was more or less destroyed except in a few places like Bali. Well, Bali really.

    What’s your point?

  6. In Response to HeiGou

    HeiGou said ON 3rd October 2006:

    Hmmm. Three translations of the Quran:

    009.030
    YUSUFALI: The Jews call ‘Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of

    Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old

    used to say. Allah’s curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!
    PICKTHAL: And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The

    Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of

    those who disbelieved of old. Allah (Himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they!
    SHAKIR: And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah

    is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!It looks pretty much what Shamoun says it does to me. Can you explain why at least two of the three translators here got it wrong?

    MY REPONSE:

    You ignored the EVIDENCE, which the brother provided (http://www.bismikaallahuma.org.....mment-2862) And may I ask why? The verse literally means “God fight them” and not “God kill them” as Shamoun who does not know Arabic claims. This “fighting” of course is not literal. Like one fights against a disease etc.

    You ask how the two translators supposedly got it wrong. So do you mean to say that they could not have got it wrong? May be for the Bible if the different versions say different things ALL can be attributed to God but not so in case of the Quran.

    Furthermore even if I agree with you for sake of argument the verse says: “GOD’S CURSE BE ON THEM” OR “GOD FIGHTS THEM” or “GOD DESTROYS THEM” God is just expressing his anger over their blasphemy.

    The verse NOWHERE says that Christians should be killed for what they believe. Even if you want to agree with the translation: May Allah destroy them or slay them (although it does not mean that here) still we have to understand that God is able to destroy any one. He punishes the guilty with hell-fire and all religions say that the guilty will dwell in hell-fire.

    Jesus said:

    Don’t be afraid of those who kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul. Rather, fear him WHO IS ABLE TO DESTROY BOTH SOUL AND BODY in Gehenna (hell). (Matthew 10:28-The Bible)

    For details read my response to Mr. Quennel.

    And I guess Shamoun infers from this verse that Islam says Christians should be killed. I don’t understand when the verse no where says that and when the verse is talking about God, how can it pretty much seem to you what Shamoun says it ‘seems’?

    And if you want to play “the how many translations say that” game then I would like to show how the different translators translated this verse:

    Let me first quote the complete verse:

    [009:030] The Jews call ‘Uzair a son of God, and the Christians call Christ the Son of God. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. God’s curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!
    From: http://www.quransearch.com 1.Yusuf Ali: …God’s curse be on them, 2. Dr. Munir Munshey: Allah’s curse is upon them! 3. Sher Ali: ALLAH’s curse be on them! 4. Shakir: may Allah destroy them 5. Pickthall: Allah (Himself) fighteth against them. 6. Sale: May God curse them (literally: fight against them)! 7. Muhammad Al-Hilali & Muhsin Khan: Allahs Curse be on them, 8. Palmer: God fight them! 9. Arberry: God assail them! 10. Khalifa: GOD condemns them. 11. Rodwell: God do battle with them!

    Sadly only ONE translation (that of Shakir) out of the ELEVEN that I have mentioned is somewhat near to Shamoun’s but even that is NOT the same as his!

    I’ll try to respond to the other posts of yours as soon as possible, Inshallah.

  7. In Response to HeiGou

    HeiGou said ON 3rd October 2006:

    Hmmm. Three translations of the Quran:

    009.030
    YUSUFALI: The Jews call ‘Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of

    Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old

    used to say. Allah’s curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!
    PICKTHAL: And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The

    Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of

    those who disbelieved of old. Allah (Himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they!
    SHAKIR: And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah

    is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!It looks pretty much what Shamoun says it does to me. Can you explain why at least two of the three translators here got it wrong?

    MY REPONSE:

    You ignored the EVIDENCE, which the brother provided (http://www.bismikaallahuma.org.....mment-2862) And may I ask why? The verse literally means “God fight them” and not “God kill them” as Shamoun who does not know Arabic claims. This “fighting” of course is not literal. Like one fights against a disease etc.

    You ask how the two translators supposedly got it wrong. So do you mean to say that they could not have got it wrong? May be for the Bible if the different versions say different things ALL can be attributed to God but not so in case of the Quran.

    Furthermore even if I agree with you for sake of argument the verse says: “GOD’S CURSE BE ON THEM” OR “GOD FIGHTS THEM” or “GOD DESTROYS THEM” God is just expressing his anger over their blasphemy.

    The verse NOWHERE says that Christians should be killed for what they believe. Even if you want to agree with the translation: May Allah destroy them or slay them (although it does not mean that here) still we have to understand that God is able to destroy any one. He punishes the guilty with hell-fire and all religions say that the guilty will dwell in hell-fire.

    Jesus said:

    Don’t be afraid of those who kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul. Rather, fear him WHO IS ABLE TO DESTROY BOTH SOUL AND BODY in Gehenna (hell). (Matthew 10:28-The Bible)

    For details read my response to Mr. Quennel.

    And I guess Shamoun infers from this verse that Islam says Christians should be killed. I don’t understand when the verse no where says that and when the verse is talking about God, how can it pretty much seem to you what Shamoun says it ‘seems’?

    And if you want to play “the how many translations say that” game then I would like to show how the different translators translated this verse:

    Let me first quote the complete verse:

    [009:030] The Jews call ‘Uzair a son of God, and the Christians call Christ the Son of God. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. God’s curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!
    From: http://www.quransearch.com 1.Yusuf Ali: …God’s curse be on them, 2. Dr. Munir Munshey: Allah’s curse is upon them! 3. Sher Ali: ALLAH’s curse be on them! 4. Shakir: may Allah destroy them 5. Pickthall: Allah (Himself) fighteth against them. 6. Sale: May God curse them (literally: fight against them)! 7. Muhammad Al-Hilali & Muhsin Khan: Allahs Curse be on them, 8. Palmer: God fight them! 9. Arberry: God assail them! 10. Khalifa: GOD condemns them. 11. Rodwell: God do battle with them!

    Sadly only ONE translation (that of Shakir) out of the ELEVEN that I have mentioned is somewhat near to Shamoun’s but even that is NOT the same as his!
    I
    ’ll try to respond to the other posts of yours as soon as possible, Inshallah.

  8. In response to AntiDogma

    AntiDogma said on 21 September 2006:

    have noticed one thing. You enjoy quoting the Old Testament, when Christ made
    sweeping reforms to change those very things.

    MY RESPONSE:

    No. Jesus said he came not to change any thing and that the one who does not follow even a single commandment is LEAST in the Kingdom of heaven!
    Nowhere does Jesus say that he came to annul the OT!

    5:17 “Don’t think that I came to abolish the law or the prophets. I didn’t come to abolish, but to fulfill. 5:18 For most certainly, I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not even one smallest letter or one tiny pen stroke shall in any way pass away from the law, until all things are accomplished. 5:19 Whoever, therefore, shall break ONE OF THE LEAST COMMANDMENTS and teaches others to do so, shall be called LEAST IN THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN; but whoever shall do and teach them shall be called GREAT in the Kingdom of Heaven. (Matthew 5:17-19- The Bible)

    Furthermore I would not believe in any religion if one part of it is violent and the other is non-violent un-like how you believe. And I will not believe in any religion supposing that all religions are foes of women and idolaters but my religion is the least so, so let me believe in it, that’s foolish. If Jesus is God why has he been giving all those brutal commandments in the OT?? The same God first says to kill women and children during wars and the same supposedly says something different later. If the OT is bad who put all those “bad things” in the OT????

    What about this commandment of Jesus (p b u h):

    15:3 He answered them, “Why do you also disobey the commandment of God because of your tradition? 15:4 For God commanded, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’* and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother,

    LET HIM BE PUT TO DEATH*

    15:5 But you say, ‘Whoever may tell his father or his mother, “Whatever help you might otherwise have gotten from me is a gift devoted to God,” 15:6 he shall not honor his father or mother.’ YOU HAVE MADE THE COMMANDMENT OF GOD VOID because of your tradition. 15:7 You hypocrites…(Matthew 15:3-7 –The Bible)

    So Jesus (p b u h) is reported to condemn the Jews for not killing people who dis obey their parents. I don’t think children should be KILLED for dis obeying their parents!

    Furthermore in the book of Revelation Jesus p b u h (?) says:

    2:20 But I have this against you, that you tolerate your woman, Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess. She teaches and seduces my servants to commit sexual immorality, and to eat things sacrificed to idols. 2:21 I gave her time to repent, but she refuses to repent of her sexual immorality. 2:22 Behold, I will throw her into a bed, and those who commit adultery with her into great oppression, unless they repent of her works. 2:23 I WILL KILL HER CHILDREN WITH DEATH,(Revelation 2:20-23- The Bible)

    Why are the children punished for the sin of the mother?

    AntiDogma said:

    For the uninitiated, the Bible is divided into 2 parts: Old Testament (Before Christ) and
    New Testament (After Christ).If we lived by the Old Testament, we would not have womens rights, free education for all, we would have racism, genocide and “eye-for-an-eye” ideologies. Oh wait.. that sounds like Islamic ideologies! Christ’s message was to change all that.

    MY REPONSE:

    If Jesus is God then the OT is his word too!!! Furthermore I don’t see any free education or women’s rights discussed by Jesus in the NT. Can you show me where? In fact it is the OT where prophets have discussed some of the women’s rights!!! Jesus did not forbid the eye for an eye ideology he just proposed something better and what he proposed is indeed better and Islam says the same thing. Verily the maxim that one Christian apologist quotes another Christian apologist without evidence is true. No wonder the Pope is as ignorant on Islam as you are:

    See: The Quran [005:045] And therein We prescribed for them (the Jews): ‘A life for a life, an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, an ear for an ear, a tooth for a tooth, and for wounds retaliation’
    But if any one remits the retaliation by way of charity, it is an act of atonement for himself
    Whoso judges not according to what God has sent down — they are the evildoers.

    And The Quran says:

    Quran [016:126] And if you punish, punish even as you have been afflicted with; and yet assuredly if you are patient,

    BEING PATIENT IS SURELY BETTER

    [016:127] And be patient; yet is thy patience only with the help of God

    Quran 42:40
    The recompense for an injury is an injury equal thereto (in degree):But if a person forgives and makes reconciliation, his reward is due from Allah: for (Allah) loveth not those who do wrong.

    Furthermore the Quran says:

    Goodness and Evil can never be equal.
    REPEL EVIL WITH WHAT IS BETTER
    Then will he between whom and
    YOU WAS ENMITY BECOME AS HE WERE YOUR INITMATE FRIEND! (Holy Quran 41:34)

    So the above verse gives the message that Goodness is not the same as evil. Repel evil with good. This will make enemies our friends rather our INTIMATE friends.

    Repel evil with that which is best: We are well acquainted with the things they say. (Quran 23:96)

    The servants of the All-merciful are those who walk in the earth modestly and who, when the ignorant address them, answer, ‘Peace’ (Quran 25:63)

    These shall be given their wage twice over for that they patiently endured, and avert evil with good, and expend of that We have provided them (in the way of God) When they hear idle talk, they turn away from it and say, ‘We have our deeds, and you your deeds. Peace be upon you We desire not the ignorant.'(Quran 28:54-55)

    The law is one thing and spirituality and forgiveness is another. If a woman who has been raped comes to court to demand justice what judgment will you pass: love thy enemy? Repel his evil with good? Or let him rape you another time (God forbid)? Jesus (p b u h) or Muhammad (p b u h) EVER indented this from such verses.

    Furthermore unlike your belief I don’t believe that God allowed genocides in the past and now he does not. In fact the eternal law of Islam on MURDER was first announced to the Children of Israel:

    Therefore We prescribed for the Children of Israel that whoso slays any human being unless it be a person guilty of manslaughter, or of spreading disorders in the land shall be as if he had slain mankind altogether; And whoso gives life to a soul, shall be as if he has given life to mankind altogether. Our Messengers have already come to them with the clear signs; then many of them thereafter commit excesses in the earth. (Quran 5:32)

    No doubt your claims of racism and genocide being Islamic ideologies are false too. Where does the Bible say any thing similar to the verse quoted above or the Hadith, which I am just going to quote????

    All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over a non-Arab nor a non-Arab has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over a black nor a black has any superiority over a white – except by piety and good action. (Muhammad peace be upon him-in his last sermon)- similar message is given in the Holy Quran 49:13 and:

    And their Lord answers them: ‘I waste not the labour (works or deeds) of any that labours among you, be you male or female — the one of you is as the other. …(Quran 3:195)

    The Bibles says: Ezekiel 21:3 and say to her: ‘This is what the LORD says: I am against you. I will draw my sword from its scabbard and cut off from you both the righteous and the wicked.4 Because I am going to cut off the righteous and the wicked, my sword will be unsheathed against everyone from south to north. – While the Quran does not hold that:

    God says: Yet thy Lord would never destroy the cities tyrannously while as yet their people were putting things right. (Quran 11:117)

    Yet thy Lord never destroyed the cities until He sent in their mother-city a Messenger, to recite Our signs unto them; and We never destroyed the cities, save that their inhabitants were evildoers. (Quran 28:59)

    Where is Racism condemned in the NT? In fact Jesus compared gentiles to dogs in a certain parable when a gentile woman came to him:

    15:24 But he (Jesus) answered, “I wasn’t sent to anyone but the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” 15:25 But she (the Canaanite gentile) came and worshiped him, saying, “Lord, help me.” 15:26 But he answered, “It is not appropriate to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.”15:27 But she said, “Yes, Lord, but even the dogs eat the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.” 15:28 Then Jesus answered her, “Woman, great is your faith! Be it done to you even as you desire.” And her daughter was healed from that hour. (Matthew 15:24-28 – the Bible)

    Plus women are not subjugated in Islam. If you accept they are subjugated in the OT then you should abandon Christianity because even the OT is the word of the same One God isn’t it?

    AntiDogma said:

    When talking about the crusades, remember that the crusades were to keep the Muslims out of Europe. The crusades occured over 1000 years ago between Christians and Muslims. Just 5 years ago, I saw Muslims terrorists crashing aeroplanes into buildings. I do not see Christians terorrists doing the same. After 1000 years, what has changed?

    MY REPONSE:

    So are you justifying the crusades? Even I can say “remember the 911 attacks were a retaliation for the American aggression against the Iraqis and for her support of the Israelis and Indians who killed Muslims” but stating the reasons behind the terrorists, which made them, attack America does not justify what they did. Using pseudo-revisionist history books cannot cover up the truth. These are even less worth than those conspiracy theories which keep coming up. Which also say that Americans carried out the 911 attacks. The Conspiracy Theorists at least present some proof of what they say and what they say is yet not proved but debatable. But the revisionist history books on the Crusades like those of Thomas F. Madden
    are obviously written to cover up truth with falsehood and their use of deceit is quite apparent. I will be refuting Mr. Heigou’s posts as soon as possible and I will try to shed some light on this issue as well. The Crusaders have committed the most horrendous crimes humanity has ever known. In fact the religion in the name of which most people have ever been killed is Christianity. But do not judge Christianity by its mis-guided followers nor Islam by its mis-guided followers.

    Christians also try to present another excuse for the crusades that: well they were over more than a 1000 years ago. No body doubts that but the point is that the Bible can be and has been used for making people commit such horrendous crimes as the crusaders, the Christian rulers and Hitler committed. And those crimes, which have been committed in the Abu Gharaib prison (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A.....ner_abuse/ Read the things which the soldiers said to the prisoners) and elsewhere in Baghdad (seriously I have not seen any so-called ‘Muslim’ terrorist doing that) and see how some ‘Christians’ support the Israeli (terrorists I must say http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wor.....969542.stm ) just because they think Israel is land which God has promised to Jews. And that God’s prophesy must be fulfilled whether women or children die! It is safe to call such people as ‘Christian’ terrorists too and that is pure religious terrorism! I’ll be discussing all I said here in some detail with proper quotes from historians in my responses to Mr. Heigou as soon as possible.

    But it must be kept in mind that I do not want to judge Christianity by its mis-guided followers nor Islam by its mis-guided followers. I have deep regards and respect for the Christians, atheists, Jews etc. who protest for us in their countries. Who protested against the Iraq war, the Israeli aggression on Lebanon etc. While here we could never do the same for them.

  9. In response to Quennel

    QUENNEL SAID on 18 September 2006:
    Who cares about Muslims being offended. Islam isn’t above criticism just because Muslims don’t want Non-Muslims say anything bad about it.

    MY RESPONSE:
    It’s all about how you say things. Sometimes two different persons are saying the same thing but one offends you and the other doesn’t. All what the Pope did was state his anti-Islamic statements in a ‘lecture.’ He did not have any one to question him or to criticize what he was saying.

    QUENNEL SAID:
    Muslims …speak bad about other religions all the time. But do they care if they are offended? No.

    MY RESPONSE:
    No Muslim religious leader or any Muslim leader of any Muslim state has ever spoken any thing BAD against any religion, in front of the whole world. Yes there are Muslims who criticize other religions and there are Christians doing the same too. While we cannot compare them to the Pope or other religious leaders or heads of states who are supposed to be more responsible and they are supposed to know that the whole world listens to what they say.

    Furthermore the majority of Muslims do not criticize Christianity or Judaism for the aggression that the followers of these two religions commit or have committed in the past against them.

    “Thus, Muslims do not blame Judaism itself for injustices committed by Jews against Palestinians. Nor do they blame Christianity per se for the crimes committed by Church-sanctioned medieval Crusades; for atrocities committed during the conquest of Spain by Christian armies and the subsequent persecution and expulsion of Muslims; nor for the horrors of the Inquisition, the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre or any number of similar tragedies.”

    (Mohammed Al Masry, Viewpoint: History dispels the lies about Islam, Middle East Times, March 13, 2006, ONLINE SOURCE)

    QUENNEL SAID:
    The Quran speak bad about other religions all the time. But do they care if they are offended? No.

    MY RESPONSE:
    The Quran not in a single verse EVER speaks bad about any ‘RELIGION!!’ But yes God in the Quran does condemn the wrong beliefs and practices of the some PEOPLE who follow other ‘religions,’ while at the same time PRAISING those followers of the same ‘religions’ who do not hold any wrong belief or who do good deeds!!!!

    “Then We sent, following in their footsteps, Our Messengers; and We sent, following, Jesus son of Mary, and gave unto him the Gospel. And We set in the hearts of those who followed him tenderness and mercy…”(Quran 57:27)

    “And lo! Of the People of the Scripture there are some who believe in God and that which is revealed unto you and that which was revealed unto them, humbling themselves before God. They purchase not a trifling gain at the price of the revelations of God. Verily their reward is with their Lord. Lo! God is swift to take account.” (Quran 3:199)

    “Say: “O People of the Book! Come to common terms as between us and you: That we worship none but The One God; that we associate no partners with him; that we erect not, from among ourselves, Lords and patrons other than God.” If then they turn back, say ye: “Bear witness that we are submitted to God’s will” (Quran 3:64)

    “Lo! Those who believe (i.e. Muhammad’s followers), and those who are Jews, and Christians, and Sabaeans – Anyone who believes in One God and the Last Day and does good deeds – surely their reward is with their Lord, and there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve. (In the hereafter)” (Quran 2:62)

    “Surely they that believe (i.e. Muhammad’s followers), and those of Jewry, and the Sabaeans, and those Christians, Whosoever believes in God and the Last Day, and works righteousness — no fear shall be on them, neither shall they sorrow.” (Quran 5:69)

    Furthermore one thing is quite clear in the Quran:

    “God does not forbid you from showing KINDNESS and DEALING JUSTLY with those who have not fought you for your religion and have not driven you out of your homes. God loves just dealers. God forbids you from making friends, ONLY THOSE who fight you for (your) Faith, and drive you out of your homes, and support others in driving you out, those who make such as friends are wrongdoers.” (Quran 60:8-9) I fail to find such a teaching this clearly being said any where in the Bible (or if you can point our some verse?)

    God warns his creation and he has to tell us that we are wrong if we are wrong. God also expresses his anger if he is angry over some beliefs or over some wrong actions of his creation. God has to tell the people that he would punish them for certain acts of theirs. God has to tell the people if he does not like them for certain acts of theirs and that his curse befalls on those people who knowing very well that something is bad still practice it! He has to tell them that God’s anger is upon such kind of people. He has to tell them that they are going to face a grievous punishment in the hereafter if they do certain things, which are wrong. He has to tell them that they would face destruction in the hereafter if they, knowing something is bad still keep on doing it.

    QUENNEL SAID:
    If your religious book claims to be from God and criticizes other religions then IN TURN YOUR RELIGION SHOULD BE SCRUTINIZED TO SEE IF IT IS ACTUALLY FROM GOD AND SHOULD ALSO BE SCRUTINIZED.

    MY RESPONSE:
    Yes but there is a proper way of doing every thing isn’t it? However you do it in this way. You said:

    (Quennel said:)If Muslims are upset then they should fault their own stupid holy book. –

    This is not the right way. Or if you think it is right then you can go on doing what you are doing, however for Muslims to get offended over HOW you say things is natural.

    Islam’s way of arguing is this:

    “Call thou to the way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful admonition, and argue with them in the better way. Surely thy Lord knows very well those who have gone astray from His way, and He knows very well those who are guided.” (Quran 16:125)

    “It was by some mercy of God that thou (Muhammad p b u h) wast gentle to them; hadst thou been harsh and hard of heart, they would have scattered from about thee. So pardon them, and pray forgiveness for them, and take counsel with them in the affair; and when thou art resolved, put thy trust in God; surely God loves those who put their trust.” (Quran 3:159)

    QUENNEL SAID:
    Non-Muslims shouldn’t live in a state of fear just because Muslims want us to bow down
    and blindly accept their religious beliefs.

    MY RESPONSE:
    No, Muslims never say that non-Muslims should just accept Islam. I only hear Christian Missionaries saying that the Muslims say so.

    It’s like me asking Quennel a question “Have you stopped killing black people?” The question implies that Quennel does surely kill black people and he only has to answer whether he has stopped killing them or not. When in the first place Quennel never killed any black person!!

    Similarly if any one says Muslims should stop forcing others to Islam must first show which Muslim is doing that. You may say the terrorists are. Well no! The missionaries even lie on part of the terrorists. Osama Bin Laden never started his fight as some holy war for converting infidels to Islam. The first war in which he ever participated was that against Russia when she OCCUPIED Afghanistan. He himself has been saying in a lot of audiotapes “you take our security and we take your security.” Furthermore when questioned by a journalist about why he killed woman and children when Islam forbids killing any woman or children during war. Osama’s reply was “They kill our women and children, we kill their women and children (-journalist: Hamid Meer- “In the Footsteps of Bin Laden” –CNN). Furthermore you pick up any terrorist no one has ever claimed to be fighting for what the missionaries or some other people claim. No wonder the terrorists quote the Quran out of context and the Islamophobes follow suit.

    I challenge Quennel to show me any verse from the Bible, which speaks on freedom of religion, a clear un-equivocal verse that says there should be no compulsion in religion!

    The Quran however says that:

    “Let there be no compulsion in religion” Quran (2:256)

    And say: The truth is from your Lord, so let him who wills believe, and let him who wills disbelieve; Quran (18:29)

    And if your Lord had pleased, surely all those who are in the earth would have believed, all of them; will you then force men till they become believers… it is not for a soul to believe except by God’s will permission; and He casts doubt on those who have no understanding. Quran (10: 99-100)

    And obey God, and obey the Messenger; but if you turn back, the Messenger’s task is only to deliver the Clear Message. (Quran 64:12)

    And they say: We believe in God and in the messenger and we obey; AFTER THAT a party of them turns away / turns back and these are not believers. When they are summoned to God and His messenger, in order that He may judge between them, behold some of them decline (to come). They swear by God solemnly that, if thou order them, they will go forth … Say: Swear not; know ye that obedience (is better). Lo! God is Informed of what ye do. Say: “Obey God, and obey the Messenger: but if ye turn back, he is only responsible for the duty placed on himself and ye for that placed on yourselves. If ye obey him, ye shall be on right guidance. The Messenger’s duty is only to preach the clear (Message) (The Holy Quran 24:47-54)

    And those Muslims who protested against what the Pope said did not want the Pope to believe in Islam or anything like that. Did the Muslims start it any way? It was the Pope who like any other religious fanatic accused the Islam and the Prophet of things, which are UN-KNOWN to Islam and the Muslims.

    If some Muslim head of the state would have said that what Dan Brown writes in his book “The Da Vinci Code” is true and if he had condemned Jesus (may God’s peace be upon him) for his (alleged) relations with Mary Magdalene or if he had condemned Jesus for killing animals brutally (all these events reported in gospels which Christians don’t believe in but are written by faithful Christians) wouldn’t Christian’s protest?

    The Pope has brought up the claim, which religious fanatics bring up, and which is un-true and un-known to Islam. There is no such thing as a Holy War (in Arabic Holy War would be “Harb-ul-Muqaddasa” a word no where in the Quran or any Hadith) in Islam nor was Islam ever spread by the sword. This myth was spread and is spread by no other than the Christian Missionaries or by those who did not have the complete knowledge of Islam or history or those who relied on un-authentic traditions. All un-biased and open-minded eminent historians deny this. And Christians no that well!!! So they come up with pseudo-revisionist history books and use deceit and falsehood to cover up the truth. I cannot say for sure if they follow what Paul said:

    For if the truth of God through my lie abounded to his glory, why am I also still judged as a sinner? (Romans 3:7-The Bible)

    Furthermore I don’t consider any terrorist to be a Muslim in the first place. And God commands me NOT to aid any one who oppresses others whether he be a self-proclaimed Muslim!!!

    “…Let not detestation for a people who barred you from the Holy Mosque move you to commit aggression. Help one another to piety and God fearing; DO NOT HELP EACH OTHER to sin, enmity and rancour. And fear God; surely God is terrible in retribution.” (Quran 5:2)

    Sahih Bukhari Volume 003, Book 043, Hadith Number 624.
    “Narrated By Anas: Allah’s Apostle said, “Help your brother, whether he is an oppressor or he is an oppressed one. People asked, “O Allah’s Apostle! It is all right to help him if he is oppressed, but how should we help him if he is an oppressor?” The Prophet said, “BY PREVENTING HIM FROM OPRESSING OTHERS.”

    Sunan Abu Dawood Book 036, Hadith Number 5098.
    “Narrated By Abdullah ibn Mas’ud: If anyone helps his people in an unrighteous cause, he is like a person who tries to pull the camel by its tail, which is falling in the well, and he falls along with the camel into the well.”

    QUENNEL SAID:
    In the Pope’s comments he claimed that Islam didn’t bring anything new and that
    Muhammad brought inhumane practices. He is right and the quran proves it: Say: “I AM NO BRINGER OF NEW-FANGLED DOCTRINE AMONG THE MESSENGERS, nor do I know what will be done with me or with you. I follow but that which is revealed to me by inspiration; I am but a Warner open and clear.” S. 46:9

    Muhammad verifies he didn’t bring anything new.

    MY RESPONSE:
    If you are using the above verse as proof for what you are claiming then I would like to tell you that the above verse no where says that “I am no bringer of NEW DOCTRINE” there are no such words in the Arabic. It only says “I am no new thing” or “I am no innovation amongst the messengers,” which just means that God has been sending messengers since generations; all of them have been mortals like the prophet Muhammad. That is God has been granting prophet hood to many men in the past and the prophet Muhammad (p b u h) has not been granted something new and he is not something, which the world is not aware of (Read Quran 3:144 Muhammad is naught but a Messenger; Messengers (the like of whom) have passed away before him. –) You choose to use Yusuf Ali’s translation here just because it suits your purpose WOW! All other translators translate this verse rightly.

    But I also agree that Islam is nothing new and it’s the same MESSAGE that has been given to all the prophets. The same message that was given to Adam (p b u h). Muhammad (p b u h) is verily not the founder of Islam. All prophets submitted to God’s will. All prophets brought the same message that there is ONLY ONE GOD OF ALL, and that we must be good to his creation. Any thing other than this eternal message any thing new cannot be true!! God has always told us that he is ONE GOD. If some one comes and tells us something new that there are actually 3 persons which are One God is thus a liar because the truth cannot be new. All prophets, the law and all God’s holy books preach ONLY one God of all.

    Quran 21:25 And We sent never a Messenger before thee EXCEPT that We revealed to him, saying, ‘There is no god but I; so serve Me.’

    And Jesus too called the father THE ONLY TRUE God (John 17:3).

    In this specific sense and in this sense alone the prophet did bring nothing new. (As Quran 41:43 [actually!] testifies)

    The following verse also proves my point:

    They were commanded NOTHING ELSE than to serve God, making the religion His sincerely, men of pure faith, and to perform the prayer, and pay the alms — that is the religion of the True. (Quran 98:5) —-

    Now this verse does not man that no other commandments were ever given. It only means that no commandment OPPOSITE to the commandments, mentioned in the verse, was ever given. Similarly the prophet was given ‘nothing-new’ means that he was not given any commandment that was against or OPPOSITE to the teachings of God. He was given the same commandment, which was given to other prophets. Any prophet who talks of different gods and different criteria’s for getting into paradise (like if you believe in the crucifixion you will be saved) which the other prophets have not taught is teaching NEW THINGS and thus is NOT God’s prophet.

    But if you are talking in a different sense than surely the prophet Muhammad (p b u h) did bring many reforms and did bring certain new laws and emphasized on certain things on which other prophets could not emphasize.

    In fact the prophet Muhammad (p b u h) was prophesized as the prophet who would teach many ‘new things’ to the world:

    I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth… John 16:12-13)

    The prophet Muhammad made non-religious education compulsory for both men and women. Even for ‘slave-girls’ (Bukhari 46:720)

    No prophet other than the prophet Muhammad strove to completely abolish SLAVERY!!!!! Islam strove to end slavery gradually and slowly. It would take a long article to describe all the measures taken by the prophet to finally end it (Quran 90:30 Quran 2:177 Quran 9:60 Quran 4:92, Quran 58:3, Quran 5:89 etc.-these verses encouraged freeing of slaves. And the different measures taken for abolishing slavery and to uplift the status of slaves are described here: Bukhari: Book 46 Hadith Number 695, Book 46 Hadith Number 696, Muslim Book 15 Hadith Number 4078, Hadith Number 4079, Hadith Number 4084, Hadith Number 4082, Hadith Number 4081,Hadith Number 4088, Hadith Number 4094. Bukhari Book 46 Hadith Number 721. Muslim Book 15 Hadith Number 4096, Abu Dawood Hadith No: 5164, Quran 4:36, Tirmidhi Hadith no. 3358, Bukhari Book 046 Hadith Number 728, Hadith Musnade-e- Ahmad Ibn Hanbal 2:4, Quran 24:32, Quran 4:25, Bukhari Book 52, Hadith Number 255. Abu Dawood Book 006, Hadith Number 2304 etc.)

    But I would like to say after the revelation of a certain verse of the Quran the Muslims were left with NO CHOICE other than to set free the prisoners of war by taking some ransom or by taking without any ransom as a good done to them. After the revelation of this verse the Muslims were not allowed to enslave the prisoners or sell them as slaves!!!!

    When you meet the unbelievers (in the battle field), smite their necks, then, when you have thoroughly subdued them, tie fast the bonds (make captives); then set them free, either by grace or ransom, till the war lays down its loads. So it shall be; and if God had willed, He would have avenged Himself upon them; but that He may try some of you by means of others (Quran 47:4)

    Thus all those captives of war will no more be allowed to be made slaves they will ALL be freed either 1. Through Ransom 2. Or without any ransom. All the wars that the prophet had to fight after this they had to free the prisoners by either taking ransom or without taking ransom and enslaving them was completely forbidden. Finally God revealed that if any slave desired freedom it must be granted to him:

    Those of your slaves who seek emancipation (freedom), contract with them accordingly, if you know some good in them; and give them of the wealth of God that He has given you. And constrain not your slave-girls to prostitution, if they desire to live in chastity…(Quran 24:33)

    The Prophet was also told:

    It belongs not to any mortal that God should give him the Book, the Judgment, the Prophet hood, then he should say to men, ‘Be you slaves to me apart from God.’ Rather, ‘Be you masters in that you know the Book, and in that you study (Quran 3:79)
    And thus the prophet said:

    Sahih Bukhari Volume 003, Book 046, Hadith Number 728. ONE SHOULD NOT SAY MY SLAVE (Abdi) OR MY SLAVE-GIRL (Amati), but should say, my lad my lass (girl) and ‘my boy.

    For the first time, a share for women in inheritance was prescribed (although in the OT in a certain case if the male relatives are not alive then the female takes the property otherwise she gets nothing, Islam on the other hand makes it compulsory that the share be given to females.) The share for the mothers is EQUAL to that of the father’s share and that of the daughters and sisters is half as compared to that of the sons and brothers Quran 4:11)

    Men were forbidden to consider the birth of a female child a loss (as the Bible says!!!) and were forbidden to make a bad face at their birth Quran 81:7-9,16:58-59) Muhammad (p b u h) said that women have similar rights as men (see Quran 2:228) Women had to be consulted when taken in marriage and this was made compulsory (Quran 4:19, Bukhari 86:98 Muslim 8:3305 etc.)

    For the first time ever animal rights were defined.

    Human Equality, end to racism (Muhammad’s last sermon, Quran 49:13, Quran 3:195)
    Provided solutions to end poverty (Zakat etc.), and methods to unite people (the Prayers, the Hajj etc.)

    Special emphasis on “thinking deeply about God’s creation” and on “looking for God’s signs in it” and emphasis on “bringing the proof for proving your point,” was made in the Quran. (Quran 3:191, 67:3, 86:5, 2:164, 22:43-45, 51:20-21, 21:24, 28:75, 2:111, 23:117 etc.)

    Strong emphasis on freedom of choosing faith (as I have already mentioned above).
    etc. etc.

    QUENNEL SAID:
    Narrated ‘Aisha and ‘Abdullah bin ‘Abbas: When the last moment of the life of Allah’s Apostle came he started putting his ‘Khamisa’ on his face and when he felt hot and short of breath he took it off his face and said, “MAY ALLAH CURSE THE JEWS AND CHRISTIANS for they built the places of worship at the graves of their Prophets.” The Prophet was warning (Muslims) of what those had done. (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 8, Number 427)

    MY RESPONSE:
    Both Muslims and Non-Muslims, if they after knowing very well that what they do is wrong, still continue doing it will be punished and are cursed by God. God says:

    Not your (the Muslims) desires, nor those of the People of the Book (can prevail): WHEVER WORKS EVIL, WILL BE REQUITED ACCORDINGLY. Nor will he find, besides God, any protector or helper. (Quran 4:123)

    In the Hadith you quoted The Prophet said “curse be on the Jews and Christians who build their worship places at the graves of their apostles”- so what’s in that? The Prophet’s job is to warn and tell people if they are wrong and THOSE Jews and Christians (who used to build worship places at graves and worshipped those graves. Similar to the Catholic Christians of today who bow down before the idols of Jesus and Mary in the church) so they were told that they were wrong, discussions were made with them. They themselves knew what they were doing was wrong but they continued doing it. God’s curse befalls those who know what they do is wrong but still continue doing it. See Quran [002:159] Those who conceal the clear signs and the guidance that We have sent down, after We have shown them clearly in the Book — they shall be cursed by God and the cursers, [002:160] save such as repent and make amends, and show clearly — towards them I shall turn; I turn, All-compassionate. And see Quran [003:086] How shall God guide a people who have disbelieved after they believed, and bore witness that the Messenger is true, and the clear signs came to them? God guides not the people of the evildoers.
    [003:087] Those — their recompense is that there shall rest on them the curse of God and of the angels and of men, altogether,

    The Book of Deuteronomy also says:

    CURSED is the man who makes an engraved or molten image, an abomination to Yahweh, the work of the hands of the craftsman,… (Deuteronomy 27:15- The Bible)

    However God is forgiving to those who sin in ignorance:

    Quran [016:119] Then, surely thy Lord — unto those who did evil in ignorance, then repented after that and put things right — surely thy Lord thereafter is All-forgiving, All-compassionate.

    Quran [004:017] God shall turn only towards those who do evil in ignorance, then shortly repent; God will return towards those; God is All-knowing, All-wise.

    Quran [006:054] And when those who believe in Our signs come to thee, say, ‘Peace be upon you. Your Lord has prescribed for Himself mercy. Whosoever of you does evil in ignorance, and thereafter repents and makes amends, He is All-forgiving, All-compassionate.’ etc.

    Jesus (p b u h) also rebuked the people for doing things, which were hateful in the sight of God:

    LUKE 11:44 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, HYPOCRITES! For YOU ARE LIKE HIDDEN GRAVES, MEN WHO WALK OVER THEM don’t know it.”

    11:45 One of the lawyers answered him, “Teacher, in saying this YOU (Jesus) INSULT US also.”

    11:46 He said, “Woe to you lawyers also! For you load men with burdens that are difficult to carry, and you yourselves won’t even lift one finger to help carry those burdens. 11:47 Woe to you! For you build the tombs of the prophets, and your fathers killed them. (Luke 11:44-46- the Bible)

    Furthermore Paul said:
    1 Corinthians 16:22-The Bible ’If anyone does not love the Lord—A CURSE BE ON HIM. Come, O Lord!
    But any prophet or God is not against any religion but they only condemn certain followers of different religions. The Quran also says that:

    “Lo! Those who believe (i.e. Muhammad’s followers), and those who are JEWS , and CHRISTIANS, and Sabaeans – Anyone who believes in One God and the Last Day and does good deeds – surely their reward is with their Lord, and there shall NO FEAR SHALL COME UPON THEM NEITHER SHALL THEY GRIEVE. (In the hereafter)” (Quran 2:62)

    QUENNEL SAID:
    While in the Quran we find this: And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. THEY IMITATE THE SAYING OF THOSE WHO DISBELIEVE OF OLD. ALLAH (HIMSELF) FIGHTETH AGAINST THEM (Arabic: qaatalahumu llahu anna yu’fakoona– Literally-May Allah KILL THEM). HOW PERVERSE ARE THEY! S. 9:30

    So Christians should be killed for believing what we want to believe. If this isn’t offensive I don’t know what is.

    MY RESPONSE:
    Where does the verse say Christians should be killed for what they believe??????

    It says “GOD’S CURSE BE ON THEM” OR “GOD FIGHTS THEM” or “GOD DESTROYS THEM” God is just expressing his anger over their blasphemy. You love to LIE that is what is offensive!! The verse WHATSOEVER nowhere says that Christians should be killed for what they believe. Even if you want to agree with the translation you LOVE TO AGREE WITH (far from it being offensive to you!) i.e. May Allah destroy them or slay them (although it does not mean that here) still we have to understand that God is able to destroy any one. He punishes the guilty with hell-fire and all religions say that the guilty will dwell in hell-fire. How is that offensive?? Jesus said:

    Don’t be afraid of those who kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul. Rather, fear him WHO IS ABLE TO DESTROY BOTH SOUL AND BODY in Gehenna (hell). (Matthew 10:28-The Bible)

    But most importantly the prophet had made a lot of discussions with the Christians of Arabia and as a last resort the Muslims and the Christians had even agreed upon doing ‘MUBAHILA’- Mubahila means to pray ardently to God and to pray him in complete sincerity and to humble oneself before God while praying ardently for guidance and invoking God’s curse upon one’s own self if one is a liar. This is actually is a test for the truthful one’s and the liars. Those liars who believe in God and know in their heart what they believe is wrong will not pray ardently for God’s curse to befall them. Although the Christians had agreed to come and the arrangements had been made but they declined to come after wards. The Quranic proposition of Mubahila is in this verse:

    And whoso disputes with thee concerning him (Jesus), after the knowledge that has come to thee, say: ‘Come now, let us call our sons and your sons, our women and your women, our selves and your selves, then let us humbly, earnestly pray and so lay God’s curse upon the ones who lie.’ (Quran 3:61)

    The same were told:

    Quran “3:70 Ye People of the Book! Why reject ye the Signs of Allah, of which ye are witnesses?
    3:71 Ye People of the Book! Why do ye clothe Truth with falsehood, and conceal the Truth, while YOU KNOW?” —

    So the Quran was NOT condemning any innocent people who did not know that they were wrong. The Jews and Christians well knew they were wrong but they still kept saying what they well knew was not right and they had themselves witnessed the signs of God. God had even told them of the secret activity that they were involved in:

    Quran 3:72 A section of the People of the Book say: “Believe in the morning what is revealed to the believers, but reject it at the end of the day; perchance they may (themselves) Turn back

    QUENNEL SAID:
    And to warn those who say: Allah hath chosen a son, (A thing) whereof they have no knowledge, nor (had) their fathers, Dreadful is the word that cometh out of their mouths. THEY SPEAK NAUGHT BUT A LIE. S. 18:6-7 Do you see us killing people and rioting over this verse? Muslims are the biggest hypocrites

    MY RESPONSE:
    What’s your point? Killing and rioting is always bad. Even if someone says offensive things still killing him is wrong. And why do you think that Christians would be killing and rioting over this verse (18:4-5 actually), which says that those who say God has begotten a son are lying?? How can this be compared to the horrible abuses and blasphemies, which come from the Christian missionaries against Islam? How can this be compared to what the Pope said?

    If the Pope had said that it is a lie to say that Christ is not the Son of God or that Christ is not God or that Christ was not crucified are nothing but lies. NOT A SINGLE MUSLIM WOULD HAVE PROTESTED!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You are committing the FALLACY of False Analogy; you are like comparing apples to oranges here. Even the Bible and in fact all religious books call different beliefs as false. No one protests. And why should any one?

    Every one has his or her own point of view but that point of view should be presented in the proper manner PLUS as concerns the heads of states or religious leaders they should NOT say certain things (even if they think they are true) when they know what they say could hurt the feelings of people.

    Plus if you see what Christians have been doing in the past you will know that Christians HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN KILLING those people who dis-agreed with them. For example every one knows that Galileo was threatened to take back his scientific claims about the earth, which were supposedly against the Bible!

    And WHERE DOES the Bible teach being patient when some one abuses your religion or to be patient if some one blasphemes the name of God???????????? In fact the Bible says:

    He who BLASPHEMES the name of Yahweh, HE SHALL SURELY BE PUT TO DEATH! the entire congregation shall certainly stone him: the foreigner as well as the native-born, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death. (Leviticus 24:16 –The Bible) I thought Quennel said: Muslims (?) are the biggest hypocrites

    Now let me not be a hypocrite and also quote what the Quran says on the same issue i.e. Blasphemy

    And God’s are the best names, therefore call on Him thereby, and LET ALONE THOSE! BLASPHEME HIS (GOD’S) NAMES / those who violate the sanctity of His names they shall be recompensed for what they did. (The Holy Quran 7:180)

    Furthermore After the Muslims had already fought a war with the un-believers and the un-believers came to fight again, at that time God knew that a lot of abuses against Islam were going to come from their side so what did God tell the Muslims?? Let me not be a hypocrite and state that too:

    And you will certainly hear from those who have been given the Book before you and from the idolaters MUCH ABUSE. And IF YOUR ARE PATIENT! And keep your duty, surely this is an affair of great resolution” (Quran 3:186)

    So even if I for the sake of argument agree that Christians don’t kill when they hear blasphemies against their religion then I must say that they are CERTAINLY NOT following their religion. In fact they are following the Quran.

    And yes certain Muslims do claim that those who blaspheme should be put to death; they usually say that on the basis of hadiths (which are indeed authentic but misunderstood or not understood in the light of the Quran) which propose the death penalty for certain apostates. But still no one of them claims that women should be punished with death if they blaspheme, unlike the Biblical law, which is for both women and men and a woman is reported to be killed by the prophet Moses in the Bible due to her blasphemy. But by saying this I do not at all mean that Islam allows death penalty for men who are apostates or for those who blaspheme, as I said before this is a mis-understanding of the hadiths, which say that.

    ->And you see the people who riot. All of them are poor people who are tired of living in poverty. They are filled with anger against the West for killing their brethren in Kashmir, Palestine, Iraq, and Afghanistan etc. In this time all they have to hold to and to satisfy their desolate hearts is their religion and when some one comes up talking bad about their religion so openly, they naturally are not able to bear that.

    QUENNEL SAID:
    They’re (i.e. the Muslims) no different the KKK who want everybody to follow and be subjected to them.

    MY RESPONSE:
    Not at all. In fact the Quran allows speaking against injustice in public:

    Quran 4:148
    God loves not that evil should be noised abroad in public speech, EXCEPT where injustice has been done; for God is He who hears and knows all things.

    The above verse i.e. Quran 4:148 explains the Islamic point of view. Freedom of Speech is alright as far it does not become a means of abusing others and hurting the feelings of others and as far as it does not make difficult the living together of civilizations in peace and harmony.

  10. I ask Mr Admin to hold back this comment of mine so that it may be released after HeiGou replies to my previous one…just to see how close I come to HeiGou’s response.

    I will try (not very hard) to imagine how HeiGou’s fantastic imagination will work on my question to him. Tis as follows…

    “Introduced by various traders and wandering mystics from India, Islam first gained a foothold between the twelfth and fifteenth centuries in coastal regions of Sumatra, northern Java, and Kalimantan. Islam probably came to these regions in the form of mystical Sufi tradition. Sufism easily gained local acceptance and became synthesized with local customs.

    The introduction of Islam to the islands was nothing other than peaceful. As Islamized port towns undermined the waning power of the east Javanese Hindu/Buddhist Majapahit kingdom in the sixteenth century, Javanese elites FLED to Bali, where over 2.5 million people kept their own version of Hinduism alive. Unlike coastal Sumatra, where Islam was adopted by elites and masses alike, partly as a way to counter the economic and political power of the Hindu-Buddhist kingdoms.”

    I, however, suspect that HeiGou will produce something more dramatic created around similar “history”.

  11. HeiGou (if I’m using the correct language- HeiGou is “Black Dog”), PaakMaw then, is “White Cat” ….

    Anyway, it seems to me that the discussions with you seem to be “a tit for a tat”. I caution the Muslims to “keep away from arguing for the sake of arguing” (-Ibn Tamiyah).

    Just to prove to the muslims that it serves no purpose for you to continue this charade with Black Dog… here’s a last Bone for you, HeiGou. (Malaysians will get this punt…”Black Dog Bone” :-D )

    I wonder what you have to say about the Malays in Indonesia and Malaysia being COERCED, in any way using yr fantastic, and at tines, hilarious imagination into your imaginarily ugly world of Islam.

    (Muslims, kindly sit back and let Black Dog enjoy his last Bone and see what he can vomit out..)

  12. Malikam X said on 26 October 2006:”Golly, HeiGou. You are choosy in terms of what you choose to “discuss”.”

    You seem to think that is a bad thing.

    Malikam X said on 26 October 2006:”Our Israeli friend AVNERY (not Avery) also said, “When the Catholics re-conquered Spain from the Muslims, they instituted a reign of religious terror. The Jews and the Muslims were presented with a cruel choice: to become Christians, to be massacred or to leave. And where did the hundreds of thousand of Jews, who refused to abandon their faith, escape? Almost all of them were received with open arms in the Muslim countries.”

    No problems. Again if he, or the Muslims who quoted this, meant it, they would agree that the exact equivalent situation also applies: when the FLN came to power in Algeria they told the Jews that if they stayed their daughters would become matresses for the ALN. So those Jews fled to France and to Israel. Is there was a shred of honesty here, or even consistency, we would all have to agree that French colonial rule in Algeria was as good if not better than Muslim rule in Spain.

    I won’t hold my breath waiting for agreement.

  13. Karim Alhiane said on 27 October 2006:”The First Scholar in the list is based in Saudi Arabia and is present on the International Union of Muslim Scholars of Which Qaradawi is part of The Muslim Brotherhood is a political Oorganization and does not represent the veiws of Sunni Mainstream Islam The Leading Traditional Sunni Scholar in The west Shaykh Hamza Yusuf who is well known in the muslim community in America has also signed the letter. The fact that the some states are repressive has no bearing because This is mainstream othadox veiw of sunni islam on the issue the problem is polititions and groups who do not adhere to the mainstream sunni islamic veiws on issues. Islam: Religion or Ideology? http://www.zaytuna.org/article…..ticleID=95″

    Interesting that a Saudi signed it – if, of course, the first signer is a Saudi as opposed to some one who works at a Saudi University. Of course once the neo-Kharijis started attacking Saudi Arabia there have been a number of statements from religious figures there condemning terrorism. What these 38 people are, as a general rule, is fairly marginal. The lack of any broad representative view is noticeable. The mainstream of Sunni Islam is becoming more and more like the MB all the time and has since the Salafi movement of the late 19th century. You can call them a political movement if you like, but Islam is a political movement too so the distinction is irrelevant. I do not see how you can call Hamza Yusuf the “Leading Traditional Sunni Scholar” in the West. In fact I would object to the words “leading”, “traditional”, and “scholar” while any number of Muslim sites would also dispute “Sunni” as well. He is barely known outside the US and he has little reputation inside it for his habit of saying different things to difference audiences. If it was a mainstream position we would see more mainstream scholars signing it. What it looks like is an attempt by the former Communist block to head of disputes by forcing their tame muftis to sign a petition which a bunch of other Muslims, for whatever reason, agreed to do as well. I wonder if they even read the English original. I expect not. So I wonder what they did sign. I think you may find that more Muslims regard the MB are more mainstream than the Zaytuna Institute. After all, how many American Muslims agree that burning the flag is wrong? Most of them seem to think attacks on Americans are fine – at least according to the MSA.

  14. HeiGou you said Where is Qaradawi or the Muslim brotherhood? Where are any Saudis?

    The First Scholar in the list is based in Saudi Arabia and is present on the International Union of Muslim Scholars of Which Qaradawi is part of The Muslim Brotherhood is a political Oorganization and does not represent the veiws of Sunni Mainstream Islam The Leading Traditional Sunni Scholar in The west Shaykh Hamza Yusuf who is well known in the muslim community in America has also signed the letter. The fact that the some states are repressive has no bearing because This is mainstream othadox veiw of sunni islam on the issue the problem is polititions and groups who do not adhere to the mainstream sunni islamic veiws on issues. Islam: Religion or Ideology? http://www.zaytuna.org/article.....ticleID=95

  15. Golly, HeiGou. You are choosy in terms of what you choose to “discuss”.

    Our Israeli friend AVNERY (not Avery) also said, “When the Catholics re-conquered Spain from the Muslims, they instituted a reign of religious terror. The Jews and the Muslims were presented with a cruel choice: to become Christians, to be massacred or to leave. And where did the hundreds of thousand of Jews, who refused to abandon their faith, escape? Almost all of them were received with open arms in the Muslim countries. The Sephardi (”Spanish”) Jews settled all over the Muslim world, from Morocco in the west to Iraq in the east, from Bulgaria (then part of the Ottoman Empire) in the north to Sudan in the south. Nowhere were they persecuted. They knew nothing like the tortures of the Inquisition, the flames of the auto-da-fe, the pogroms, the terrible mass-expulsions that took place in almost all Christian countries, up to the Holocaust.”

  16. Terence said on 21 October 2006:”HeiGou, you should know better than to expect Moslems to defend themselves against such attacks.”

    Well I live in hope that one day these issues will be resolved through discussion and not beheading. I expect I am naive.

    Terence said on 21 October 2006 quoting Avery:”The treatment of other religions by Islam must be judged by a simple test: How did the Muslim rulers behave for more than a thousand years, when they had the power to “spread the faith by the sword”?”

    This is simply going to become a discussion about what we mean by “spreading faith by the sword”. Did they forcibly convert everyone within their power? Of course not. Or at least, not every where. Did they rely on military force to conquer countries and then use their police powers to harass and persecute non-Muslims into converting? Of course they did. Would anyone in the Middle East have converted to Islam if not for the sword? Well thirteen years trying peacefully in Mecca and Muhammed only managed a few dozen converts. How much better did he do in Medina?

    Terence said on 21 October 2006 quoting Avery:”For many centuries, the Muslims ruled Greece. Did the Greeks become Muslims? Did anyone even try to Islamize them? On the contrary, Christian Greeks held the highest positions in the Ottoman administration. The Bulgarians, Serbs, Romanians, Hungarians and other European nations lived at one time or another under Ottoman rule and clung to their Christian faith. Nobody compelled them to become Muslims and all of them remained devoutly Christian.”

    A lot of Greeks did become Muslims and hence ceased to be Greeks. Because, of course, the Turkish government harrassed and persecuted them and occasionally forcibly did bad things to them. Like the time the Ottoman soldiers complained about a lack of female company and so the Sultan took them to a Church and grabbed every Greek girl who came out and gave them to the soldiers as wives. The Turks tried very hard to convert them. They just did not offer them two choices (“Islam” or “death”) as opposed to the usual three (“Islam”, “dhimmitude” or “death”). Did the Greeks rise to the highest positions in the government? Well free Greek boys taken as slaves and forcibly converted to Islam did. Is this what is being counted? Can we all agree that was expansion of Islam by the sword given the violence used and the objections of the families?

    Terence said on 21 October 2006 quoting Avery:”True, the Albanians did convert to Islam, and so did the Bosniaks. But nobody argues that they did this under duress. They adopted Islam in order to become favorites of the government and enjoy the fruits.”

    Favorites of the government and enjoy the fruit. That is, Islamic law persecuted and harassed them if they remained Christian and rewarded them if they became Muslims and they agreed to become Muslims. Not something that could have been done if not for the Ottoman Army repressing them.

    Terence said on 21 October 2006 quoting Avery:”THERE IS no evidence whatsoever of any attempt to impose Islam on the Jews. As is well known, under Muslim rule the Jews of Spain enjoyed a bloom the like of which the Jews did not enjoy anywhere else until almost our time.”

    The example of Shabbatai Sevi suggests that is not true. Turkey still has a population of Muslims who were forcibly converted from Islam.

    As for the Golden Age of Muslim Spain, it is trivial to prove that Leftists like this guy and Muslims are using a Protestant myth that they do not believe in. That they are, basically, dishonest in their presentation of this story given they reject it and the values it represents. After all, just ask about French rule in Algeria or British rule in Malaysia or Dutch rule in Indonesia. All these places saw a more tolerant and peaceful system of government where people of all faiths learnt from each other and the rulers spread the most advanced technology and civilisation. So French Algeria was at least as much a Golden Age as Muslim Spain. Does anyone disagree?

    Terence said on 21 October 2006 quoting Avery:”WHY? Because Islam expressly prohibited any persecution of the “peoples of the book”. In Islamic society, a special place was reserved for Jews and Christians. They did not enjoy completely equal rights, but almost. They had to pay a special poll-tax, but were exempted from military service – a trade-off that was quite welcome to many Jews. It has been said that Muslim rulers frowned upon any attempt to convert Jews to Islam even by gentle persuasion – because it entailed the loss of taxes.”

    Yes – people of the Book. Jews, Christians. Mazdaeans and Zoroastrians. Not Buddhists for instance. Was Islam spread by the sword wherever Buddhists lived? Well yes it was. Almost equal rights? This is absurd. It would be hard to name a single equal right.

    Terence said on 21 October 2006 quoting Avery:”THE STORY about “spreading the faith by the sword” is an evil legend, one of the myths that grew up in Europe during the great wars against the Muslims – the reconquista of Spain by the Christians, the Crusades and the repulsion of the Turks, who almost conquered Vienna.”

    Actually it is a simple statement of fact. There are two definitions of “spreading by the sword” and you both only look at one – the “Islam or death” argument. That did apply but mostly in the non-European world where there were few Christians or Jews. However the more subtle version – Islam can only expand where it holds political power and persecutes – is obviously true and it is not a myth.

    Terence said on 21 October 2006 quoting Avery:”I suspect that the German Pope, too, honestly believes in these fables. That means that the leader of the Catholic world, who is a Christian theologian in his own right, did not make the effort to study the history of other religions.”

    I would suggest that someone check with the Pope before they make comments about what he believes. The irony of people attacking the Pope – not for what the Pope said – but the content of a quote from a Byzantine Emperor is amazing. Why is it ironic? That Byzantine Emperor had seen most of his Empire go down under the swords of the Ghazis and his son would see Byzantium fall. For 700 years the Byzantines had suffered unjustified and unprovoked attacks by Muslims. Who can honestly claim to know better how Islam was spread by the sword than the victims like the Emperor?

  17. Karim Alhiane said on 16 October 2006:”another good read:

    http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/m…..nedict.php”

    Actually I thought that started out well but became the usual run of the mill paranoia, conspiracy theory, ad hominem, misinterpretations, misquotations, sneers and slurs. It is the best I have seen so far but that simply reflects the inadequacy of the Muslim response.

    Karim Alhiane said on 21 October 2006:Keep them comming
    Open Letter to His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI by 38 Leading Muslim Scholars and Leaders
    very good balanced read
    http://www.islamicamagazine.co…..8238DA.pdf”

    “Leading Muslim scholars” in this case being “leading Muslim scholars from a lot of repressive police states with little credibility”. Why do I think the Russian government may have lent on people? I assume we all can agree the Syrians and Jordanians did. Who else signed it? The grand muftis of Egypt, Russia, Bosnia, Croatia, Kosovo, Turkey, Uzbekistan and Oman, the Iranian Shiite cleric Ayatollah Muhammad Ali Taskhiri, and Professor Seyyed Hossein Nasr of Georgetown University, Washington. The GM of Egypt impresses me but of course he is just a civil servant. The rest are a group of repressive former Communist countries, that well known Islamic republic of Turkey, and of course Professor Nasr – a “moderate” Sufi. The interesting ones are the Omani and Taskhiri, but what you have here is not “Islam” responding to the Pope, but what looks very much like a group of repressive anti-Islamic states attempting to head off Muslim anger before it takes to the streets. Where is Qaradawi or the Muslim brotherhood? Where are any Saudis?

  18. HeiGou, you should know better than to expect Moslems to defend themselves against such attacks. Let’s see what an Israeli can do….

    Muhammad’s Sword by Uri Avnery
    23-09-2006
    http://zope.gush-shalom.org/ho.....159094813/

    As a Jewish atheist, I do not intend to enter the fray of this debate. It is much beyond my humble abilities to understand the logic of the Pope. But I cannot overlook one passage, which concerns me too, as an Israeli living near the fault-line of this “war of civilizations”.

    Jesus said: “You will recognize them by their fruits.” The treatment of other religions by Islam must be judged by a simple test: How did the Muslim rulers behave for more than a thousand years, when they had the power to “spread the faith by the sword”?

    Well, they just did not.

    For many centuries, the Muslims ruled Greece. Did the Greeks become Muslims? Did anyone even try to Islamize them? On the contrary, Christian Greeks held the highest positions in the Ottoman administration. The Bulgarians, Serbs, Romanians, Hungarians and other European nations lived at one time or another under Ottoman rule and clung to their Christian faith. Nobody compelled them to become Muslims and all of them remained devoutly Christian.

    True, the Albanians did convert to Islam, and so did the Bosniaks. But nobody argues that they did this under duress. They adopted Islam in order to become favorites of the government and enjoy the fruits.

    In 1099, the Crusaders conquered Jerusalem and massacred its Muslim and Jewish inhabitants indiscriminately, in the name of the gentle Jesus. At that time, 400 years into the occupation of Palestine by the Muslims, Christians were still the majority in the country. Throughout this long period, no effort was made to impose Islam on them. Only after the expulsion of the Crusaders from the country, did the majority of the inhabitants start to adopt the Arabic language and the Muslim faith – and they were the forefathers of most of today’s Palestinians.

    THERE IS no evidence whatsoever of any attempt to impose Islam on the Jews. As is well known, under Muslim rule the Jews of Spain enjoyed a bloom the like of which the Jews did not enjoy anywhere else until almost our time. Poets like Yehuda Halevy wrote in Arabic, as did the great Maimonides. In Muslim Spain, Jews were ministers, poets, scientists. In Muslim Toledo, Christian, Jewish and Muslim scholars worked together and translated the ancient Greek philosophical and scientific texts. That was, indeed, the Golden Age. How would this have been possible, had the Prophet decreed the “spreading of the faith by the sword”?

    What happened afterwards is even more telling. When the Catholics re-conquered Spain from the Muslims, they instituted a reign of religious terror. The Jews and the Muslims were presented with a cruel choice: to become Christians, to be massacred or to leave. And where did the hundreds of thousand of Jews, who refused to abandon their faith, escape? Almost all of them were received with open arms in the Muslim countries. The Sephardi (“Spanish”) Jews settled all over the Muslim world, from Morocco in the west to Iraq in the east, from Bulgaria (then part of the Ottoman Empire) in the north to Sudan in the south. Nowhere were they persecuted. They knew nothing like the tortures of the Inquisition, the flames of the auto-da-fe, the pogroms, the terrible mass-expulsions that took place in almost all Christian countries, up to the Holocaust.

    WHY? Because Islam expressly prohibited any persecution of the “peoples of the book”. In Islamic society, a special place was reserved for Jews and Christians. They did not enjoy completely equal rights, but almost. They had to pay a special poll-tax, but were exempted from military service – a trade-off that was quite welcome to many Jews. It has been said that Muslim rulers frowned upon any attempt to convert Jews to Islam even by gentle persuasion – because it entailed the loss of taxes.

    Every honest Jew who knows the history of his people cannot but feel a deep sense of gratitude to Islam, which has protected the Jews for fifty generations, while the Christian world persecuted the Jews and tried many times “by the sword” to get them to abandon their faith.

    THE STORY about “spreading the faith by the sword” is an evil legend, one of the myths that grew up in Europe during the great wars against the Muslims – the reconquista of Spain by the Christians, the Crusades and the repulsion of the Turks, who almost conquered Vienna. I suspect that the German Pope, too, honestly believes in these fables. That means that the leader of the Catholic world, who is a Christian theologian in his own right, did not make the effort to study the history of other religions.

  19. Keep them comming
    Open Letter to His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI by 38 Leading Muslim Scholars and Leaders
    very good balanced read
    http://www.islamicamagazine.co.....8238DA.pdf

  20. Robocop said on 9 October 2006:”white conspiracy theorists believe that it was your white crosstian terrorist goverment that planned the 9/11 incident.”

    I am not responsible for the rantings of the insane.

    Me:”And the Western military are not terrorists but soldiers carrying out a legal, morally just, war that the Muslim terrorists started.”

    Robocop said on 9 October 2006:”khristian terrorists are phkin just? they are cowards hiding behind fighter jets that take out hundreds and thousands of inncoent civilian because of an alleaged terrorist in white crosstians mind? you believe that white crosstian lie? would you like to experice your house getting bombed? your grandmaas nose getting blown off by white crosstian terrorist bombs?”

    If you do not bother to read what I said, there is no point replying. There are no Christian terrorists and in so far as there are any, the US Army is not among them. There is no moral equivalence between a legal army carrying out legal orders in a legal war – meaning they actuvely try not to harm civilians – and terrorists. So your comments are simply irrelevant. Islamic law commands Muslims to attack Harbi soldiers if they shelter behind civilians. Even if those civilians are Muslims. Not allows, but commands. Is that morally wrong? A legal war is one thing, terrorism is another. If you wish to discuss the rights and wrongs of wars I am happy to but there is no comparison whatsoever between the US Army which tries not to kill civilians, and the terrorists who try to do nothing else.

    Robocop said on 9 October 2006:”muslims are using only garbage weapons that are nothing compared to white crosstian bombs that kill millions.maybe the iraqi brothers should match white crosstian “collateral damage,” what do you think?”

    The Americans have not killed millions and the effects of those weapons is irrelevant. The intention is what counts. If the Iraqis want to join a legal army, and fight in the open in uniforms, man to man, without attacking civilians, they can do so legally. As long as they fight for a country. They would die of course but they would have a moral and legal right to do so. But if they want to hide behind women, refuse to wear uniforms, refuse to fight like soldiers, they are only bandits and they ought to be dealt with accordingly. The Iraqis are not matching the Americans in collateral damage – they are causing most of it.

    Robocop said on 9 October 2006:”this is crosstian love at its best.”

    No one claims that army is a Christian army but you. And the body count does not include only those killed by the Americans. Your outrage is simply based on an irrational hatred. Seek medical help.

    Karim Alhiane said on 9 October 2006:”I have some good Responces from islamic scholars and christion leaders

    Karim Alhiane said on 9 October 2006:”New Article: A Muslim Response to The Pope By Imam Zaid Shakir
    http://www.zaytuna.org/article…..icleID=107″

    How is this subliterate, semi-educated rant a good response? It assumes that the Pope is evil and it does not even bother to consider his argument. For example:

    “Instead, he scoured the writings of a rival sect to find a statement that categorically condemns Islam as irrational and violent.”

    Where is the evidence that he “scoured” anything?

    “The Pope is a trained philosopher, logician, and diplomat and as such, he knows exactly what the implications of the word “only” are in the emperor’s statement: “Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman…”

    “Only” renders the statement categorical, meaning there is nothing good to be found in Islam.”

    No it does not. Any child with the reading age of a seven year old knows that the claim that there was nothing good in all the *new* *things* Muhammed brought is not the same as there being nothing good in Islam. What the Emperor claimed is that when Islam talks of peace and justice and so on, these are repeating the Christian message. What Islam does that is unique, he claimed, is evil – such as jihad. This is basic reading comprehension. Surely you can find better.

    “As he develops his argument, he also implies there is nothing rational in Islam. Hence, there is no room to negotiate with Muslims, there are no lofty or shared principles or values to appeal to, there is only evil. In a world where good is the desirable ideal, evil must be eliminated. The Pope did not carry his argument to this logical conclusion, but others have done so.”

    Again this is simply hate. The Pope said none of this. He simply contrasted the Christian and Muslim views of reason and logic in their respective religions. Nowhere did he say there was nothing rational in Islam. Nowhere did he say there are no shared values – on the contrary he specifically said the contrary. Nowhere did he even hint Islam ought to be eliminated. This is simple vile provokation and hatred from an intellectual pygmy. Kind of proving the point thought doesn’t it?

    Karim Alhiane said on 9 October 2006:”A Message from His Beatitude Ignatius IV (Father Hazim of Lebanon)”

    Karim Alhiane said on 9 October 2006:”Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch and all the East
    http://www.zaytuna.org/A-Messa…..ius-IV.asp”

    Yes. The views of a Dhimmi in a repressive police state like Syria is neither here nor there. Read carefully. The Copt Pope essentially said, in a passage other Muslims have commented on, “we don’t support the Pope because the Muslims will kill us”. I expect the underlying motivation is the same here.

  21. “Well yes and no. All three revealed religions have been foes of women’s rights and equality, but Christianity the least so and so Christianity was the prerequisite for Women’s rights.”

    extract from an article called “Reply to McFall on Jesus as a Philosopher (2004)”

    “In contrast, for example, why do we not find anything even close to this from Jesus?

    Women, as well as men…have received from the gods the gift of reason…and the female has the same senses as the male…one has nothing more than the other. Moreover, not men alone, but women, too, have a natural inclination toward virtue and the capacity for acquiring it, and it is the nature of women no less than men to be pleased by good and just acts and to reject the opposite of these….Yes, but I assure you, some will say, that women who associate with philosophers are bound to be arrogant for the most part and presumptuous, in that abandoning their own households and turning to the company of men they practice speeches, talk like sophists, and analyze syllogisms, when they ought to be sitting at home spinning. I should not expect the women who study philosophy to shirk their appointed tasks for mere talk any more than men, but I maintain that their discussions should be conducted for the sake of their practical application. For as there is no merit in the science of medicine unless it conduces to the healing of man’s body, so if a philosopher has or teaches reason, it is of no use if it does not contribute to the virtue of the human soul. (Musonius Rufus, “That Women Too Should Study Philosophy”)”

    have you ever considered rufus’s god?

  22. I have some good Responces from islamic scholars and christion leaders

    I will post the links here for anyone to read

    Zaytuna Videocast
    Episode 3
    with Shaykh Hamza
    “Broadening the
    Scope of the Pope”
    http://video.google.com/videop.....#038;hl=en

    New Article: A Muslim Response to The Pope
    By Imam Zaid Shakir
    http://www.zaytuna.org/article.....icleID=107

    Imam Zaid Shakir – Response To The Pope (Audio) |
    http://zaidshakir.com/%5Cmp3%5Cresponsetopope.mp3

    A Message from His Beatitude Ignatius IV
    (Father Hazim of Lebanon)

    Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch and all the East
    http://www.zaytuna.org/A-Messa.....ius-IV.asp

  23. I have never seen a Christian deliberate crash his plane on anything – what incident do you have in mind?

    white conspiracy theorists believe that it was your white crosstian terrorist goverment that planned the 9/11 incident.

    And the Western military are not terrorists but soldiers carrying out a legal, morally just, war that the Muslim terrorists started.

    khristian terrorists are phkin just? they are cowards hiding behind fighter jets that take out hundreds and thousands of inncoent civilian because of an alleaged terrorist in white crosstians mind? you believe that white crosstian lie? would you like to experice your house getting bombed? your grandmaas nose getting blown off by white crosstian terrorist bombs?

    You are clearly irrational on this subject but if you cannot see the difference between the West that tries not kill innocent people and fights openly,and the Muslim terrorists who aim to kill civilians and will not fight openly there is something wrong with you.

    muslims are using only garbage weapons that are nothing compared to white crosstian bombs that kill millions.maybe the iraqi brothers should match white crosstian “collateral damage,” what do you think?

    at infidel.org forums a jewish person by the name of red dave started a thread long ago called IRAQ BODY COUNT – ONGOING

    http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=152508

    this is crosstian love at its best.

  24. John said on 4 October 2006:”Dividing Bible with the measure of “Before Christ” and “After Christ” is the best example for the “best act of stupidity”. There are no such things like “Before Christ” and “After Christ”, as Jesus himself told that he was in existence even before Abraham. See >> “Before Abraham was I am. (John 8:58)”.”

    Which is interesting but irrelevant. The division into BC and AD makes perfect Christian sense because the importance is not the existence of Christ, but His interaction with the world and His sacrifice on the Cross. So although He existed, Christians think, before He was born, the Convenant only applied ot Jews before He died on the Cross.

    John said on 4 October 2006:”You would not have the above said things if you lived by the New Testament either. If you enjoy any kind of freedom in your country, bear in mind that it is not because of New Testament. If women in your country feel equality with men, it is because they fought for it, they shed their blood and tears for it. Racism and genocide have been the monopolies of the Bible and its followers. No other scriptures had showed the audacity to play with that fire. “eye-for-an-eye” ideology was first coined by no other scripture than your “Holy” Bible.”

    Well yes and no. All three revealed religions have been foes of women’s rights and equality, but Christianity the least so and so Christianity was the prerequisite for Women’s rights. Racism and genocide are not monopolies of the Bible and only an idiot would think so. And the concept of an “eye for an eye” dates back to Sumerian law and so pre-dates even the Bible.

    John said on 4 October 2006:”Muslims had been claiming the above statement for centuries that crusades were racial. So you agree with them! Thank you very much for being “the first fanatic Christian to raise his voice against crusade”.”

    I doubt that Muslims have ever claimed the Crusades had anything to do with race because they did not. They were an attempt to defend the West and liberate land lost to Muslim aggression and colonisation.

    John said on 4 October 2006:”Watch any channels other then CNN. Then you shall see Christian terrorists crashing their aeroplanes and carpet bombing on every atom and molecules in Iraq and Afganistan or any other places in this globe, killing millions of innocent people including babies, women and old folks alike.”

    I have never seen a Christian deliberate crash his plane on anything – what incident do you have in mind? And the Western military are not terrorists but soldiers carrying out a legal, morally just, war that the Muslim terrorists started. You are clearly irrational on this subject but if you cannot see the difference between the West that tries not kill innocent people and fights openly, and the Muslim terrorists who aim to kill civilians and will not fight openly there is something wrong with you.

    John said on 4 October 2006:”These “Muslim terrorists”, you saw just 5 years ago, crashing aeroplanes into buildings, were trying to retaliate for the act of terrorism committed for centuries, by these state-sponsored Christian terrorists.”

    There are no state-sponsored terrorists in the West. Only in the Muslim world. And they were not retaliating for anything because a. they have nothing to retaliate for, and b. if you play that game, the Muslims still started it when they invaded Roman Syria unjustly and without provokation.

    John said on 4 October 2006:”The big joke here is that these Christian terrorists showed the guts to justify their crimes by saying that they were trying to “install democracy” in these regions. Why don’t they interfere in China, Korea and other militarily powerful countries? There is no democracy in these countries! I shall tell you the reason. These Christian terrorists will get their asses burned if they dare to touch these countries!”

    Well of course. So what? Because you cannot do everything is not reason not to do something. We have to start somewhere and with the people that attacked America seems a good place to start. What is the joke?

    John said on 4 October 2006:”Only the people like you will reach to such a “great” conclusion! May God give you atleast 1gm of brain! It is a well known fact that Hitler was a faithful Christian.”

    No it isn’t because he wasn’t and he said so. Often.

    John said on 4 October 2006:”It was the British Christian Terrorists who first looted the trillions and trillions of dollars worth wealth of Indians. They made India a poor country. They encouraged the Indians to fight in the name of religions. They forcefully converted Indians to Christianity. And they trained the Indians to lick their dirty boots. Even in the last seconds of their stay in that country, they played a lot of dirty tricks on them. They cut their country away and told them that it is because of Muslims their country split. Believing this lie, some Hindu fanatics butchered thousands of Muslims. Gandhi raised his voice against this ferocity. So they killed him.”

    This is just paranoia and lies. No Christian terrorists. They did not loot trillions and in so far as they took anything, they also gave India a lot. You only have to look at the population figures to see that under British rule India prospered. India was not made a poor country by anyone but the Muslims. They tried not to convert anyone to Christianity forcifully or not. Your comments do not deserve a response. The Muslims insisted on splitting their country. The British did not make them. The only real slaughter was of Sikhs and Hindus by Muslims. In other places the Hindus defended themselves.

  25. In response to AntiDogma.

    >> I have noticed one thing. You enjoy quoting the Old Testament, when Christ made sweeping reforms to change those very things.

    Really?!! Then what about this? >> Matthew 5:17:
    “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.”

    Actually, even the above quoted verse is unnecessary to refute your boastings. Why? Jesus is a God, according to Bible itself. So the verses in OT are nothing but the “guidelines” given by Jesus. Christians have no way out of this mess!

    >> For the uninitiated, the Bible is divided into 2 parts: Old Testament (Before Christ) and New Testament (After Christ).

    Dividing Bible with the measure of “Before Christ” and “After Christ” is the best example for the “best act of stupidity”. There are no such things like “Before Christ” and “After Christ”, as Jesus himself told that he was in existence even before Abraham. See >> “Before Abraham was I am. (John 8:58)”.

    >> If we lived by the Old Testament, we would not have womens rights, free education for all, we would have racism, genocide and “eye-for-an-eye” ideologies.

    You would not have the above said things if you lived by the New Testament either. If you enjoy any kind of freedom in your country, bear in mind that it is not because of New Testament. If women in your country feel equality with men, it is because they fought for it, they shed their blood and tears for it. Racism and genocide have been the monopolies of the Bible and its followers. No other scriptures had showed the audacity to play with that fire. “eye-for-an-eye” ideology was first coined by no other scripture than your “Holy” Bible.

    Here are some quotes for you, just enjoy!

    [Judg. 21:10] “Go and smite the inhabitants of Ja’-besh-gil’ead with the edge of the sword; also the women and the little ones. Every male and every woman that has lain with a male YOU SHALL UTTERLY DESTROY.”

    Timothy 6:1 “All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God’s name and our teaching may not be slandered.”

    Again,

    Peter 2:18 “Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.”

    One more,

    Colossians 3:22 “Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.”

    Women’s rights, free education, war against racism and genocide, all of these were the fruits of various revolutions stormed in Western world in the previous centuries. Europe had been under the dictatorial ruling of Christian priests with Bible in their right hands. Kings and statesmen were only their toys. People were burned alive only for opening their mouth against these injustices.

    Indeed, the New Testament was out there before these revolutions took place and there was no equal right for women, free education and so, but there was racism, genocide, slavery and all kinds of darkness sponsored by your “Holy” Bible.

    >> When talking about the crusades, remember that the crusades were to keep the Muslims out of Europe.

    Muslims had been claiming the above statement for centuries that crusades were racial. So you agree with them! Thank you very much for being “the first fanatic Christian to raise his voice against crusade”.

    >> The crusades occured over 1000 years ago between Christians and Muslims.

    Let me correct an error in your statement,

    “The crusades occured over 1000 years ago against Muslims by Christians”.

    >> Just 5 years ago, I saw Muslims terrorists crashing aeroplanes into buildings.

    Thank you for watching that.

    >> I do not see Christians terorrists doing the same.

    Pity on you! Watch any channels other then CNN. Then you shall see Christian terrorists crashing their aeroplanes and carpet bombing on every atom and molecules in Iraq and Afganistan or any other places in this globe, killing millions of innocent people including babies, women and old folks alike.

    These “Muslim terrorists”, you saw just 5 years ago, crashing aeroplanes into buildings, were trying to retaliate for the act of terrorism committed for centuries, by these state-sponsored Christian terrorists.

    The big joke here is that these Christian terrorists showed the guts to justify their crimes by saying that they were trying to “install democracy” in these regions. Why don’t they interfere in China, Korea and other militarily powerful countries? There is no democracy in these countries! I shall tell you the reason. These Christian terrorists will get their asses burned if they dare to touch these countries!

    >> After 1000 years, what has changed?

    Nothing has changed yet. Christians are still barbarians.

    >> George Bernard Shaw: You do realise he was a socialist-Marxist, extremely ingrained with the belief that Communism was the way forward, and if that were true, the end of religion.

    So what?

    >> He also supported Nazism stating that Jews in concentration camps died of overcrowding.

    Certainly, He was a very good scholar who also jokes!

    >> You are quoting an Anti-Semite.

    Anti-Semitic blabla! There was a time when people feared of being accused of Anti-Semite. Not anymore!

    >> So if he holds Hitler in high regard, and you claim he holds Muhamnad in high regard too… draw your own conclusions.

    Only the people like you will reach to such a “great” conclusion! May God give you atleast 1gm of brain! It is a well known fact that Hitler was a faithful Christian.

    >> Gandhi: Here was a guy who preached non-violence, reached to the Harijan and promoted goodwill and got shot by a Hindu radical. Seems like a great guy to quote. Problem is, he got shot for giving up Pakistan as a “payment” to the Muslims. Why is it so bad to pay the Muslims? The reason for paying the Muslims according to Gandhi insiders and critics, is that Gandhi did not want to share power!

    You are insulting Mahatma Gandhi, though unnecessary. It was the British Christian Terrorists who first looted the trillions and trillions of dollars worth wealth of Indians. They made India a poor country. They encouraged the Indians to fight in the name of religions. They forcefully converted Indians to Christianity. And they trained the Indians to lick their dirty boots. Even in the last seconds of their stay in that country, they played a lot of dirty tricks on them. They cut their country away and told them that it is because of Muslims their country split. Believing this lie, some Hindu fanatics butchered thousands of Muslims. Gandhi raised his voice against this ferocity. So they killed him.

    >> Lamartine: French Catholic who led efforts to the abolition of slavery and death penalty, as well as the enshrinement of the right to work. He supported democracy and pacifism. No wonder you like him.

    No wonder you dislike him! Because you are a Christian to the core.

    >> He is basically the guy who opened France up to Arab immigrants.

    France did the same brutality towards Arabs, like their British counterparts did towards Indians in India.

    >> Need I say more?

    It is more than enough for an average person to reach to the conclusion that you are a perfect “Christian” (species of self-deceiving hypocrite)!

  26. heman said on 3 October 2006:”And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. THEY IMITATE THE SAYING OF THOSE WHO DISBELIEVE OF OLD. ALLAH (HIMSELF) FIGHTETH AGAINST THEM (Arabic: qaatalahumu llahu anna yu’fakoona– Literally-May Allah KILL THEM) . HOW PERVERSE ARE THEY! S. 9:30
    —– ———————————— ———————– ———————
    screwbaaal the QAAF in this verse is stretched becuase of an alif.it doesn’t mean kill you shamoun worshipper.”

    Hmmm. Three translations of the Quran:

    009.030
    YUSUFALI: The Jews call ‘Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah’s curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!
    PICKTHAL: And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old. Allah (Himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they!
    SHAKIR: And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!

    It looks pretty much what Shamoun says it does to me. Can you explain why at least two of the three translators here got it wrong?

  27. And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. THEY IMITATE THE SAYING OF THOSE WHO DISBELIEVE OF OLD. ALLAH (HIMSELF) FIGHTETH AGAINST THEM (Arabic: qaatalahumu llahu anna yu’fakoona– Literally-May Allah KILL THEM) . HOW PERVERSE ARE THEY! S. 9:30
    —– ———————————— ———————– ———————
    screwbaaal the QAAF in this verse is stretched becuase of an alif.it doesn’t mean kill you shamoun worshipper.

    “and if they fight you those who disbelieve they will certainly retreat turning their backs.” 48:22

    the QAAAF in this verse is strectched aswell because of an alif that is on TOP OF the QAAF just like for QAAAtalahu in surah tawbah above.

    if we were to follow your love shamoun’s iterpretation,then the ayah would read like, “and if they KILL you those who disbelieve they will certainly retreat turning their backs.”

    see the absurdity of blindly worshipping sham shamoun?

  28. mujaahid said on 30 September 2006:”Christinas are killers , Racists , they like to kill human being. at least in every christians family , some of they killed human being , they are evil creatures who belives in white race to dominate the world . here are some links , you will find how they evil creatures. god creatured human being( non-white) and evil creatures( white people) …….. so , have to live enduring and fighting their crimes .( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7576505/ Pope’s Nazi past: Benedict XVI former Hitler Youth member )”

    Uh huh. I would ask the Moderator whether it is their policy to allow such viciously racist and hate-filled material on their site. How acceptable if the word “Christian” was replaced by the word “Muslim”? Sure, Benedict was a former member of the Hitler Youth. At that stage membership in Germany was complusory. So what? At least he did not voluntarily support the Nazis like Anwar Sadat or the late Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.

  29. Christinas are killers , Racists , they like to kill human being. at least in every christians family , some of they killed human being , they are evil creatures who belives in white race to dominate the world . here are some links , you will find how they evil creatures. god creatured human being( non-white) and evil creatures( white people) …….. so , have to live enduring and fighting their crimes .( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7576505/ Pope’s Nazi past: Benedict XVI former Hitler Youth member )

    — ( http://www.worldfreeinternet.net/archive/arc12.htm Addressing the “Removal” of Native Americans,
    and the Subversion of Natural Culture )

    –http://www.nemasys.com/ghostwolf/Native/genocide.shtml Spiritual and Cultural Genocide…

    –http://www-cs-students.stanford.edu/~cale/cs201/apartheid.hist.html The History of Apartheid in South Africa

    http://www.holocaustforgotten.com/Lucaire.htm POLAND’S HOLOCAUST: 6 MILLION CITIZENS DEAD
    (3 MILLION CHRISTIANS + 3 MILLION JEWS)
    BUT DON’T THE 3 MILLION CHRISTIANS COUNT?
    by Edward Lucaire

    the bove links are some of christians crimes commited against human race . read it ,

  30. christianities justification for killing jews came from the nt.

    quote
    “All the people [Jews] answered and said, his blood be upon us and on our children.” (Matthew 27:25)

    Most fundamentalists will argue that the perpetrators of the history of atrocities against the Jews were not “true” Christians. However, according to many historians, it is precisely such New Testament rhetoric that is responsible for creating the atmosphere in which such events could transpire.end quote

  31. This is just another opportunity for Muslims to stir up their own communities against the West.
    What with all the rhetoric against the West, I would suggest Muslims get their own house in order.If Muslim world’s anger can simply be aroused by a quote, it’s probably time to get some anger management.

  32. MENJ says:”What we would like to know is, how could Pope Benedict XVI have quoted from a power-crazy emperor whose hostility towards Islam was well-known?”

    Power-crazy? Where is the evidence that this poor Emperor – who was only trying to defend his homeland and people – was power-crazy? Is it fair to say that your comment is just a gratuitous smear? Hostility to Islam? You don’t think that trying to save your country from colonisation and your people from slavery might incline you a little to hostility? What did Islam do that would make any Greek love it?

    MENJ says:”In the eleventh century, the Western Christians thought the time had come to turn the tables of history.”

    True. For 300 years they had been attacked by Muslims – without justification – and now they felt it was time to defend themselves.

    MENJ says:”The Crusades were launched with disastrous consequences to Christian-Muslim and Muslim-Christian relations.”

    Well no. Defending yourself can never have disastrous consequences. That was caused by the invasion of Christian countries like Syria.

    MENJ says:”His predecessor, Pope Urban II, was the person who first coined the term “holy war” (which, it should be noted, is alien to Muslim thought)”

    Explain to me the differences between “jihad” and “Crusade”. Holy War looks common to both as far as I can see except that Islam coined the term first.

    MENJ says:”In his speech, Pope Urban II called for colonization of the Muslim world:

    For you must hasten to carry aid to your brethren dwelling in the East, who need your help, which they have often asked.”

    Notice that all the Pope is doing is asking European Christians to help Syrian Christians who not only needed European help but had often asked for it – he was not calling for the colonisation of anywhere, but the liberation of the indigenous population of Palestine.

    MENJ says:”It should be noted that all Jews, Muslims and non-Catholic Christians were massacred during the Crusades, especially during the conquest of Jerusalam in the First Crusades War.”

    That is not true. There were isolated massacres but they did not massacre everyone. Indeed as Ibn Jubayr makes clear Muslim peasants prefered to be ruled by Christian Crusaders than by their fellow Muslims.

    MENJ says:”For eight centuries, Islam had been the faith not only of immigrant Arabs and Berbers but of native Spaniards who were always the majority. The “Inquisition” made no differentiation; and it brought to an end one of the most glorious chapters in the history of inter-religious living and co-operation.”

    Well “inter-religious living and co-operation” in the same sense that European colonialism was as well. Care to point out what Muslim Spain had that French Algeria did not?

    MENJ:”The damage that the Pope had done, whether consciously or unconsciously, have certainly undone the peace-making efforts and bridging of relations by his predecessor, who was also the first Pope to step foot into a mosque when he visited the Umayyad Mosque in Damascus and paid a visit to the grave of the Prophet Yahya (John the Baptist). The current Pope is nowhere as magnamious as his predecessor and clearly he is trying to reverse the efforts the previous Pope. However he should not be ignorant of facts. Freedom of expression should not include lies.”

    JP2 did nothing to make peace with Muslims because nothing he offered received any response except more violence. It is the years of JP2 that saw the rise of suicide bombing and terrorism in Europe after all. I doubt that JP2 was the first to step inside a mosque, but it is worth pointing out that the Umayyd Mosque in Damascus is actually a Church. The Muslims took it when they invaded Christian Syria. What facts has the Pope been ignorant of? And if freedom of expression is to mean anything it must include lies – otherwise it is meaningless.

  33. AntiDogma said on 21 September 2006: I have noticed one thing. You enjoy quoting the Old Testament, when Christ made sweeping reforms to change those very things.
    MR. are you sure ??? you dont even know your bibles . let correct you , by this verse from you bibles the so CALLED old testaments that you think no longer valid . ” THINK NOT that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil.”–MATTHEW 5:17 then , who is reformer ? jesus(pbuh) ? you ? your church ? for how long you keep lying to your self ??

    http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm

  34. Mat 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword

    fave verse from bible :-D

  35. I can prove that the NT allows rape of female slaves, just like the OT. Christ established nothing! What did he say about the two most fundamental questions facing all human communities:(a) how do we solve value differences? (b) How do we distribute scarce resources? Christianity makes no attempt whatsoever to answer these questions.

  36. I have noticed one thing. You enjoy quoting the Old Testament, when Christ made sweeping reforms to change those very things.

    For the uninitiated, the Bible is divided into 2 parts: Old Testament (Before Christ) and New Testament (After Christ).

    If we lived by the Old Testament, we would not have womens rights, free education for all, we would have racism, genocide and “eye-for-an-eye” ideologies. Oh wait.. that sounds like Islamic ideologies! Christ’s message was to change all that.

    When talking about the crusades, remember that the crusades were to keep the Muslims out of Europe. The crusades occured over 1000 years ago between Christians and Muslims. Just 5 years ago, I saw Muslims terrorists crashing aeroplanes into buildings. I do not see Christians terorrists doing the same. After 1000 years, what has changed?

    About the people you quoted:

    George Bernard Shaw: You do realise he was a socialist-Marxist, extremely ingrained with the belief that Communism was the way forward, and if that were true, the end of religion. He also supported Nazism stating that Jews in concentration camps died of overcrowding. You are quoting an Anti-Semite. So if he holds Hitler in high regard, and you claim he holds Muhamnad in high regard too… draw your own conclusions.

    Philip Schaff: Charged by the Catholic church for heresy but unanimously acquited. He died more than 100 years ago and his writings have since been superceeded by new information derived through fields called scientific research and anthropology. Perhaps not the best example.

    Gandhi: Here was a guy who preached non-violence, reached to the Harijan and promoted goodwill and got shot by a Hindu radical. Seems like a great guy to quote. Problem is, he got shot for giving up Pakistan as a “payment” to the Muslims. Why is it so bad to pay the Muslims? The reason for paying the Muslims according to Gandhi insiders and critics, is that Gandhi did not want to share power!

    Michael H. Hart: Using this guy is a joke. His reputation is no different from Afghanistan. All bombed up and depleted. After completing his book ‘The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History’, lets have a look at his next works.

    The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History, 1978
    Extra-Terrestrials, Where Are They? (co-edited with Ben Zuckerman), 1982
    A View from the Year 3000

    Great, a sci-fi buff. Can I quote David Duchovny next?

    Lamartine: French Catholic who led efforts to the abolition of slavery and death penalty, as well as the enshrinement of the right to work. He supported democracy and pacifism. No wonder you like him. He is basically the guy who opened France up to Arab immigrants. I cannot imagine you quoting someone like John Howard.

    Anyway, about Lamartine, He was an unsuccessful candidate to the presidential election of December 10, 1848. It seems his followers deserted him on the grounds that he was too willing to concede ground and was not tough enough. Need I say more?

  37. I challenge Quennel Gail to a debate on “Does the NT allow slaves to be raped?”

  38. “why didnt christianity bring these things? rather what we find in christianity is that it is allowed to kill women and children, I CHALLENGE YOU TO SHOW ME ONE VERSE FROM THE NT that says dont kill women and children, the OT war commands have never been abrogated, therefore you are still allowed to kill women and children. filthy christianity.”

    “Furster, as I stated before, we have clear cases of Christian fundamennalism supporting a Zionist state that is running on the principles of racism plain and simple. Further, this nation has
    violated almost every single Geneva Convention on Human Rights, and your talking as if Christina fundametnalism has no responsibility to play in this. The ties between the neoconservatives and Israel is so well known, it is not even a point of dispute anymore. Are they supporting Israel for any other sake than the fact that God declared it Holy in the Bible? ”

    “The Christian Right is giving Israel countless of millions, if not billions of dollars to
    Israel without accountability. The Christain Right wants to raise the Temple of Solomon over Aqsa, supporting the extremists in Israel? Why? “

  39. BIBLE TELLS CHRISTIANS KILL ALL NONE WHITE RACE “” Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.But all the women-children, that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.”– NUMBERS 31:17-18 “For goodness sake, will they hear, will white people hear what we are trying to say? Please, all we are asking you to do is to recognize that we are humans, too.” — BISHOP DESMON TUTU Christians white are getting ready to for genocide , humanbeing have full rights to deffend them self . VICTORY TO humanity .!!!!!!!! we humans have to unite for our EXISTANCE , NAZIS are on RISE ABOUT ANN to KILL !!

  40. pope worships satan

    “And if a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. (Mk. 3:24, cf. 3:25-26; Mt. 12:25; Lk. 11:17-1)

    To make matters worse, Jesus proclaims that belief in him will set father against son, mother against daughter, and everyone against everyone else (Luke 12:51-53; Matthew 10:34-36). In other words, he will divide his own house. By his own reasoning, doesn’t that mean his own house is doomed to fall?”

  41. “Rape isn’t implied? It practically slaps you in the face:

    Numbers 31 (ASV)
    17
    Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that
    hath known man by lying with him.

    18
    But all the women-children, that have not known man by lying with him, keep
    alive for yourselves.

    Only girls that have not had sex are kept alive. Can you please explain for
    what other purpose they were kept alive?

    As slaves? If so, why mention sexual purity?

    As worker slaves? If so, keep the boys alive because they are stronger than the
    women.”

    why is it that there was no problem with saving virgin girls but problems saving innocent cannaite fetuses and babies?

    maybe pope can show us where his pagan man god condemns this in the nt.

    i would like to know why god of moses is PISSED with moses when he disobeys:

    “Moses sturck the rock at Meribah and was punished by being forbidden to enter the Promised Land. ”

    but when moses kill hundreds of innocent ppl, yhwh remains silent:

    “Moses ordered the massacre of thousands of prisoners of war and wasn’t punished at all? Does not compute. Does not compute. Does not compute”

  42. *forbidding the killing of women and children (not christian and muslims although Islam did prohibit us to kill muslims, and innocent christians, the bible lets you kill all, innocent included)

  43. let me just show why are u stupid quennal, Islam did bring new things, 1- forbidding alcohol, 2- forbiding the killing of christian and muslims

    why didnt christianity bring these things? rather what we find in christianity is that it is allowed to kill women and children, I CHALLENGE YOU TO SHOW ME ONE VERSE FROM THE NT that says dont kill women and children, the OT war commands have never been abrogated, therefore you are still allowed to kill women and children. filthy christianity.

    secondly, christianity still makes people into drunk animals, since it allows alcohol consumption, didnt your god know that alcohol leads to several problems? or was your god too stupid to realize the problems of alcohol that he never prohibited it. hmmmmm not a very smart god if you ask me.

  44. are you quennal gale?

  45. In the Pope’s comments he claimed that Islam didn’t bring anything new and that Muhammad brought inhumane practices. He is right and the quran proves it:

    Say: “I AM NO BRINGER OF NEW-FANGLED DOCTRINE AMONG THE MESSENGERS, nor do I know what will be done with me or with you. I follow but that which is revealed to me by inspiration; I am but a Warner open and clear.” S. 46:9

    Muhammad verifies he didn’t bring anything new. Pope Benedict was correct. If Muslims are upset then they should fault their own stupid holy book.

    Narrated ‘Aisha and ‘Abdullah bin ‘Abbas:

    When the last moment of the life of Allah’s Apostle came he started putting his ‘Khamisa’ on his face and when he felt hot and short of breath he took it off his face and said, “MAY ALLAH CURSE THE JEWS AND CHRISTIANS for they built the places of worship at the graves of their Prophets.” The Prophet was warning (Muslims) of what those had done. (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 8, Number 427)

    While in the Quran we find this:

    And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. THEY IMITATE THE SAYING OF THOSE WHO DISBELIEVE OF OLD. ALLAH (HIMSELF) FIGHTETH AGAINST THEM (Arabic: qaatalahumu llahu anna yu’fakoona– Literally-May Allah KILL THEM) . HOW PERVERSE ARE THEY! S. 9:30

    So Christians should be killed for believing what we want to believe. If this isn’t offensive I don’t know what is.

    And to warn those who say: Allah hath chosen a son, (A thing) whereof they have no knowledge, nor (had) their fathers, Dreadful is the word that cometh out of their mouths. THEY SPEAK NAUGHT BUT A LIE. S. 18:6-7

    Do you see us killing people and rioting over this verse? Muslims are the biggest hypocrites and this is why they want to shut people up. They’re no different the KKK who want everybody to follow and be subjected to them. This won’t happen.

    [Admin: Nothing but the usual cheap lies from Quennel Gale, copied from the whale Sham Shamu. Do not worry about trying to get away with your pack of lies, we will certainly deal with it once we respond to your pals at AI.]

  46. Who cares about Muslims being offended. Islam isn’t above criticism just because Muslims don’t want Non-Muslims say anything bad about it. Muslims and the Quran speak bad about other religions all the time. But do they care if they are offended? No. If your religious book claims to be from God and criticizes other religions then IN TURN YOUR RELIGION SHOULD BE SCRUTINIZED TO SEE IF IT IS ACTUALLY FROM GOD AND SHOULD ALSO BE SCRUTINIZED.

    Non-Muslims shouldn’t live in a state of fear just because Muslims want us to bow down and blindly accept their religious beliefs.

    [Admin: I guess you must be talking about yourself since you certainly don’t have any qualms starting an anti-Islamic website. But guess what? Bismika Allahuma exists because you do.]

  47. When the missionaries came to Africa they had the Bible and we had the land. They said “Let us pray.” We closed our eyes. When we opened them we had the Bible and they had the land.
    Desmond Tutu

  48. “The hope of civilization itself hangs on the defeat of Negro suffrage.” A statement by a prominent 19th-century southern Presbyterian pastor, cited by Rev. Jack Rogers, moderator of the Presbyterian Church (USA).

  49. It was Friday the 8th of May, 1840, that is about a
    hundred and fifty years ago, at a time when it was a
    sacrilege to say anything good about Muhammad (pbuh),
    and the Christian West was trained to hate the man
    Muhammad (pbuh) and his religion, the same way as dogs
    were at one stage trained in my country to hate all black
    people.1 At that time in history, Thomas Carlyle, one of the
    greatest thinkers of the past century delivered a series of
    lectures under the theme – “Heroes and Hero-worship. ” http://www.muhammad.net/mg/muhammadG18.htm

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *