Popes comments about Islam.

mysteria

Ratzsinger just apologized to the Muslim community so he obviously felt he had reason to. I mentioned being Pagan simply to explain that I'm not, as my surname may imply, from an Islamic background.

maitri

the_new_mr wrote:

Let me just start by completly condemning the attacks on the churches. The people who carried out this act are a complete disgrace to humanity and this kind of thing has no foundation in Islam whatsoever.

I agree, those people have probably not read very much in the Qu'ran - or they havn't understood what it says:

[25:63] The worshipers of the Most Gracious are those who tread the earth gently, and when the ignorant speak to them, they only utter peace.

[7:180] And Allah's are the best names, therefore call on Him thereby, and leave alone those who violate the sanctity of His names; they shall be recompensed for what they did.

[33:48] And be not compliant to the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and leave unregarded their annoying talk, and rely on Allah; and Allah is sufficient as a Protector.

[10:65] And let not their speech grieve you; surely might is wholly Allah's; He is the Hearing, the Knowing.

For the record, I am not by this implying that the Pope is an unbeliever or a hypocrite or blasphemic or any such thing, but even if he were, the burning of churches and murder of nuns, does seem to me to have nothing to do with Islam as represented in the Qu'ran.

However, I think the Pope's speech was stupid and that he must have really bad counsellors, and I think that it is good that he apologised.

Wibbs

mysteria wrote:

Ratzsinger just apologized to the Muslim community so he obviously felt he had reason to. I mentioned being Pagan simply to explain that I'm not, as my surname may imply, from an Islamic background.

Of course and as I said his reasons were twofold. Good manners and the fact that the nutjobs have hijacked this and were likely to go off on a revenge spree. Do you really think if this had been about Buddha we would have seen something like this? Oh hang on, his predecessor wrote some stuff about aspects of Buddhism that troubled him and upset some in that community(IIRC he suggested that certain aspects of Buddhism might be thought of as self centered or something along those lines). Where were the riots, the burning of effigies?

As for your surname, I've no idea what it is, but I take your point.

mysteria

To be fair Buddhist countries are'nt being invaded and their people murdered in their thousands for the past 5yrs. Look at the furore caused by Mel Gibson's reference to someone being a Jew. An actor who was drunk at the time. I still maintain that the Pope was very ill-advised to make the references he did. Religion as we know all too well is always an inflammatory subject and in the current political climate the worldwide reaction speaks for itself.

Flying

Whilst I am no fan of the RC Church or the Pope, I believe that he said nothing wrong and I would tend to agree with his quote it was relevant back in the 14th Century and is relevant now.

This clearly is another jibe by the muslims to get us to submit, I listened to several celrics from Iran to Indonesia spout vitrol and violence and also burning of ephergies of the Pope.

He has proved his point as did the danish cartoonist, Islam clearly is a religion of Violence and Power.

I watched al jerzza yesterday and I may aswell have been watching Hitlers speeches of the 30's and 40's.


I support the RC church on this for this once, I as a Zionist understand the clear and simple undertones present in the Islamic world and their "senisitivity" to comments, maybe they should stop trying to wipe out Christians and Jew's and people will accept them more.

If you want to practice your religion do so in peace, but the word "Peace" is not part of their makeup.

Another clear case of Islamofacism.

mysteria

Well as a Zionist you'd hardly be considered impartial in this. If Ratszinger ( who had some tentative Nazi connections at some stage I believe) condemned Israel for it's attack on Lebanon I doubt you'd support him. I believe in justice, and Ratszinger's ill-conceived words have made the world a harder place for everyone right now. Peace & Blessings to all I say!

Flying

mysteria wrote:

Well as a Zionist you'd hardly be considered impartial in this. If Ratszinger ( who had some tentative Nazi connections at some stage I believe) condemned Israel for it's attack on Lebanon I doubt you'd support him. I believe in justice, and Ratszinger's ill-conceived words have made the world a harder place for everyone right now. Peace & Blessings to all I say!

I may not be impartial but this is a clear case of good and evil and muslims are not very peace loving.

Wibbs

mysteria wrote:

To be fair Buddhist countries are'nt being invaded and their people murdered in their thousands for the past 5yrs.

Ever heard of Tibet?

Look at the furore caused by Mel Gibson's reference to someone being a Jew. An actor who was drunk at the time.

Does Mel Gibson have a viable realistic death threat hanging over him. Were effigies of Mr Gibson burned in the street? Imagine if he made the same kind of statement about Muslims?

Religion as we know all too well is always an inflammatory subject and in the current political climate the worldwide reaction speaks for itself.

That much I'm in some agreement with.

Well as a Zionist you'd hardly be considered impartial in this.

That goes for pretty much everybody posting on the subject. Naturally.

If Ratszinger ( who had some tentative Nazi connections at some stage I believe)

Low blow. Pretty much everybody of German birth at his age would have had "Nazi connections" as you put it.

condemned Israel for it's attack on Lebanon I doubt you'd support him.

You'll find he condemned both sides like many other world leaders.

the_new_mr

Schuhart wrote:

Just to be clear of the context, this withdrawal seems to be at the request of the author and not because of any official action.

Oh really? Well, at least it was withdrawn. That's the main thing.

Schuhart wrote:

nor do I feel an intense need to pen cartoons mocking the idea of the virgin birth.

Did I read about a different cartoon incident or was that you just stating something as an example?

Schuhart wrote:

By ridicule, atheists display the fact that these doctrines hold no power over them. Hence, in a sense, it is akin to an act of prayer and so rightly protected as a matter of freedom of conscience.

And yet by doing so, they offend literally millions of people. Can't see it as a good quality to have. I know some athiests personally. They don't make extra effort to offend other peoples' religions.

Schuhart wrote:

Before anyone pretends that disrespect is in some way unacceptable, let us recall that the Quran states that the Christian idea of God having a son is a ‘disaster’. Should Christians burn copies of the Quran, or symbolically cut the offending words from copies of the Quran as a protest? Should they continue such protests until they get an apology for this text, and the Quran is edited to remove the relevant words?

Let's be accurate here. There is a huge difference between diagreement and disrespect. A difference of opinion in creed is perfectly okay. Indeed, according to your logic, it could work the other way with Muslims saying that any book that says that Jesus (peace be upon him) is the son of God should be burnt, altered etc. As we know, this is not required of Christians in a Muslim state as Christians are allowed full religious freedom.

So, to have a difference in beliefs concerning creed is perfectly okay. To slander one of the main figureheads of another religion isn't okay by any means.

Schuhart wrote:

Profession of a faith, or of no faith, inevitably involves doing things that cut to the heart of the beliefs of others.

Why does it have to be that way?

Al-Kafirun:1-6
"Say: O disbelievers!; I worship not that which ye worship; Nor worship ye that which I worship.; And I shall not worship that which ye worship.; Nor will ye worship that which I worship.; Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion."

To each their own and that's that. Noone needs to be offended by that. It's like if I like Snickers and you like Mars. I won't force you to eat Snickers because I think it's better than Mars. If you want to eat Mars then that's fine. I can eat snickers and even go so far as to tell you why I think Snickers is better but, in the end, the decision is yours. Also, I should not ridicule the Mars (okay, so the analogy falls a bit weak at the end there but you get the picture )

Wibbs wrote:

As an example, mocking the prophet or Islam would be considered a crime against both and would be punishable in both this life and the next. In the prophets time quite a few people who mocked the Prophet were killed for it, either on his instruction or with his approval afterwards.

maitri wrote:

[25:63] The worshipers of the Most Gracious are those who tread the earth gently, and when the ignorant speak to them, they only utter peace.

Well done maitri. I was just thinking of this verse today. This is the best response as it is indeed the one proscribed by God. As for the hadith, I'll have to find out more about it but I doubt that it was just for saying bad things about the Prophet (peace be upon him) if the hadith is authentic. Abu Sufyan was one of the leaders of Mecca and said basically everything bad he could about the Prophet Mohamed (peace be upon him). He was never killed for it and in fact embraced Islam (of his own free will I must add) later.

Wibbs wrote:

Hobbes wrote:

The actions of the minority does not reflect the religon as a whole.

Naturally. However, the largely complicent silence of the majority on matters such as this, just may.

This goes back to media coverage bias. The media prefer to show the angry mob rather than the law abiding citizens. Their reason for doing so is anybody's guess but it's true. Also, what about this forum man?!! I'll think you'll find that 100% of the Muslims here are non-violent

Wibbs wrote:

Which you could accuse Islam of doing in it's territories too.

Already handled this. Islam was not spread by the sword. See post from earlier.

Wibbs wrote:

Organised slavery was practiced far longer and way after in the Islamic world than when the Christian west outlawed the practice. Who do you think supplied and controlled the African slave trade(and still practice it in some places).

Still haven't gotten round to putting up that chapter of that book on how Islam abolished slavery in phases. Also, if slavery was (and is) performed in the Islamic world, that doesn't mean that it's an Islamic practice. I mean, you've got people all over Africa killing each other because of tribal feuds. Is that part of Islam? You've even got people smoking hash and drinking till they conk out (Muslims and non-Muslims). Is that part of Islam? Like Hobbes said, don't take the actions of some individuals as what Islam is about. Like Suff said, Islam is a perfect religion, its followers are not.

Wibbs wrote:

Then again anti western feeling seems very easy to ignite in some sections of the Muslim world.

Can you blame them? I would like to stress on the point that most people in the Muslim world are Anti-Bush, Anti-Blair but not Anti-West. Most people in the Muslim world understand that it's the governments to blame and not the people.

Wibbs wrote:

and the Muslim world is just as led by their media and leaders if not more so.

Sorry Wibbs, this is not true. I know this from my own experience of living in the Muslim world. I have a very perceptive eye for these kind of things (even if I do say so myself) and there is no equivalent in the Muslim world of the subtle anti-Islam messages that are continually propagated in the west.

Wibbs wrote:

Could we be even having this debate in some parts of the Muslim world? No would be your answer.

And you know this because...?

mysteria wrote:

Peace be with you all.

And with you mysteria.

Flying, you're getting a one week ban starting today for breaking rule #1. I'd like everyone to note that he's not being banned because he's a Zionist (although his Zionist views which influenced his post did). You know something Flying, as long as people have that kind of attitude then you can forget about living in peace. Why don't you try and assume the best in people instead of the worst in people? Also, I wouldn't make random statements about Islam and Muslims which clearly show your ignorance on the subject. Perhaps some light reading will enlighten the ignorance. You don't have to read it but you really should.
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=Zone-English-Discover_Islam/DIEZone

Wibbs

the_new_mr wrote:

To each their own and that's that. Noone needs to be offended by that. It's like if I like Snickers and you like Mars. I won't force you to eat Snickers because I think it's better than Mars. If you want to eat Mars then that's fine. I can eat snickers and even go so far as to tell you why I think Snickers is better but, in the end, the decision is yours. Also, I should not ridicule the Mars (okay, so the analogy falls a bit weak at the end there but you get the picture )

I must say that's as class an anology I've seen for a while in religious matters. The sermon of the confections as it were.

As for the hadith, I'll have to find out more about it but I doubt that it was just for saying bad things about the Prophet (peace be upon him) if the hadith is authentic.

I'll dig up the other hadith about the other killings where dissention even in poetry is rewarded by death. The one eyed shepherd is a very good example of an arbitory killing as he was hardly a "threat".

Abu Sufyan was one of the leaders of Mecca and said basically everything bad he could about the Prophet Mohamed (peace be upon him). He was never killed for it and in fact embraced Islam (of his own free will I must add) later.

Well the Prophet had ordered his execution before taking Mecca, but he escaped. In the end I seem to remember he came to Mohammed when he was at prayer to talk. He was jumped on by some of the Prophets followers who asked if they should kill him(strange time to ask such a thing given they were at prayer). At that point Mohammed pardoned him as Abu had accepted him as a Prophet(and indeed rewarded him with title and goods later). Now the only difference is that he became a Muslim. If he had not he would likely have been killed. A cynic might think it was a good political move on the part of Abu Sufyan.

This goes back to media coverage bias. The media prefer to show the angry mob rather than the law abiding citizens. Their reason for doing so is anybody's guess but it's true.

Sadly there's bias everywhere. One has to attempt to pick apart the guff from the facts. That's the duty of anyone looking for a middle ground.

Sorry Wibbs, this is not true. I know this from my own experience of living in the Muslim world. I have a very perceptive eye for these kind of things (even if I do say so myself) and there is no equivalent in the Muslim world of the subtle anti-Islam messages that are continually propagated in the west.

Really? Even if you watch al jazeera their slant is naturally towards their own audience. There are many Muslim religious types with anti west leanings and pronouncments(and some who do not of course). There are subtle anti whatever messages wherever one looks. No culture is innocent of that. There seems to me at least to be a tendency on the part of many Muslims to find bias and critique where little exists. There can be a paranoia(maybe too strong a word) present, when looking at the "west". Sometimes with good reason, many times with none. That may be down to many practices in the west that would be thought of as anti religion or anti the instructions of religion and this is picked up by some as specifically aimed at them(hard line Christians do it too). Oft times it's not.

Schuhart

the_new_mr wrote:

Well, at least it was withdrawn. That's the main thing.

There’s a world of difference between the idea that the author deciding to withdraw it and being compelled to withdraw it.

the_new_mr wrote:

Did I read about a different cartoon incident or was that you just stating something as an example?

I thought one was along the lines that Mary had a venereal disease.

And yet by doing so, they offend literally millions of people.

Provocation is an acceptable way of getting your point across. The Quran takes a similar approach in the way it lays heavy stress on the eternal damnation facing anyone who refuses to accept the faith. I’d say mockery and humour is a justifiable tactic in response by people who regard the suggestion they are bound for hell as offensive.

Indeed, according to your logic, it could work the other way with Muslims saying that any book that says that Jesus (peace be upon him) is the son of God should be burnt, altered etc.

That is more or less my point. You have to put up with the Pope quoting from 14th century texts when he finds it helpful to get his point across, and he has to put up with you saying Christ’s divinity is a disaster. Both of you have to put up with your doctrines being dismissed by others. I don’t want to pre-empt your response, but this doesn’t seem to be what’s happening.

As we know, this is not required of Christians in a Muslim state as Christians are allowed full religious freedom.

Does that include the right to accept converts from Islam? If not, its not full religious freedom.

So, to have a difference in beliefs concerning creed is perfectly okay. To slander one of the main figureheads of another religion isn't okay by any means.

Which basically amounts to you saying ‘We can say what we like about Jesus, because saying he’s not divine is a difference in creed but not slander. On the other hand, no-one can say anything we don’t like about Mohammed because that’s slander’.

To each their own and that's that.

That is certainly the target, but I’m not sure that we’re there yet.

Hobbes

Schuhart wrote:

There’s a world of difference between the idea that the author deciding to withdraw it and being compelled to withdraw it.

He didn't do either. He clarified what it was he said and apologised that he may of caused offense. I didn't see anything in that he was forced to release an apology, his intent was not to incite in the first place and even the vatican stated this before he did.

The Quran takes a similar approach in the way it lays heavy stress on the eternal damnation facing anyone who refuses to accept the faith.

I don't see how that is provocation.

The truth of the matter is that it doesn't matter what faith you belong to there will always be another that as far as you are concerned your going to hell.

The Quaran btw, does preach trying to get on with other religons (Catholic church to iirc).

Both of you have to put up with your doctrines being dismissed by others.

Your missing the point. If an average joe on the street said it then its probably going to be ignored (unless they are stupid enough to do it in front of fanatics, regardless of religon).

However this is the head of the whole of the catholic church.

While a lot of people are aware according to the RC religon that the Pope is infallible many are not aware that this only relates to matters of the Catholic Church. As the presentation was his personal opinion it would not fall under that. But its easy to see people think that way.

‘We can say what we like about Jesus, because saying he’s not divine is a difference in creed but not slander.

IIRC they can't say what they like about Jesus. The only contention is they don't believe him to be Son of God. But then each religon has its own beliefs.

On the other hand, no-one can say anything we don’t like about Mohammed because that’s slander’.

If your not Muslim you certainly can say what you like (not in this forum though). You are going to offend a lot of people, but then the same will happen no matter what religon you try to offend. Some have varying levels of what they find offensive.

Schuhart

Hobbes wrote:

He didn't do either. He clarified what it was he said and apologised that he may of caused offense.

The comment you are responding to was, in turn, in response to the issue mentioned by The New Mr relating to the cartoons published in a US student magazine, which were the subject of complaints by Christians.

Hobbes wrote:

The truth of the matter is that it doesn't matter what faith you belong to there will always be another that as far as you are concerned your going to hell.

That’s pretty much what I’m saying. Equally, if people feel its perfectly in order to suggest I’m bound for eternal damnation, they have to accept that I regard that notion as risible. They can display their faith by attending worship in whatever form they like and huddle in groups giving thanks to their god for saving them from the flames beckoning me.

I really cannot understand how they feel their believe in my eternal pain is in some way socially acceptable, while someone else’s idea that they are complete fools and should be laughed at is unacceptable.

Bear in mind, I’m not saying any block should be placed on their enjoyment of their philosophy. I just don’t see why they should stop others enjoying theirs because they find the material distasteful. Is my eternal damnation tasteful? (Sorry if I’m labouring the point, but I think it needs to be made and we seem to be circling it rather than landing).

Your missing the point. If an average joe on the street said it then its probably going to be ignored (unless they are stupid enough to do it in front of fanatics, regardless of religon) . However this is the head of the whole of the catholic church.

But another point being missed is that because he’s the head of the Church, he must have some right to express his faith as he sees it. Hence my example of the Quran describing the divinity of Jesus as a disaster. Of course this has to be preached if it’s a central tenet of Islam. Similarly, the Pope has to preach to his flock.

This is not some silly Danish cartoon – it’s a world religious leader making a speech that, in fairness, actually contains some interesting content on the relationship between religion and reason. I don’t think he really needs to explain this controversy because of a tangental reference to Mohammed. Nevertheless, in fairness, he has.

Some have varying levels of what they find offensive.

And this is really the issue. Can people self select what’s going to be said about them? Can Islam tell the Pope that he cannot quote 14th Century writings if he finds it useful to make a point? Can he tell Islam to edit the Quran? Can I decide I want both of them to stop pretending that I’m bound for hell?

Or can we all just accept the free expression that we all need to profess our beliefs inevitably mean we will say things that others regard as offensive?

tonyj

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-1234375,00.html

Cardinal George Pell, the head of Australia's RC Church, made a valid point today;

"The violent reaction in many parts of the Islamic world justified one of Pope Benedict's main fears."

"They showed the link for many Islamists between religion and violence, their refusal to respond to criticism with rational arguments, but only with demonstrations, threats and actual violence."

Hobbes

tonyj wrote:

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-1234375,00.html

Cardinal George Pell, the head of Australia's RC Church, made a valid point today;

Not a valid point at all when the Pope has already said that is not what he meant.

cyrus the virus

RTE wrote:

Some Australian Muslim leaders said the comments by both Pope Benedict and Cardinal Pell should be condemned.http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0918/pope.html

Yet I have not read one Muslim leader condemning 9/11 nor did I ever read one Muslim leader condemning 7/7 bombings.

What I have been reading in the news lately and I now see that Islam is not a religion but its a cover for evil. It seems in my own view that Islam has failed as a religion. When I draw a picture of Islam I see them as bigot people who are evil and can't respond to criticism with rational arguments. I know that this not all Muslims, and the good should condemn evil.

Frank Grimes

cyrus the virus wrote:

Yet I have not read one Muslim leader condemning 9/11 nor did I ever read one Muslim leader condemning 7/7 bombings.

Here's some links for you.

HelterSkelter

cyrus the virus wrote:

What I have been reading in the news lately and I now see that Islam is not a religion but its a cover for evil.

What are you smoking my friend?!!There are 20,000 Muslims in Ireland. Don't you think there would be a bit more evil if this was true? As a matter of fact most of the destructive things in our society today are against Islamic beliefs, i.e. Alcohol, Drugs, Gambling, so you could argue that if we were all Muslims this country would be a much less evil place.

cyrus the virus wrote:

It seems in my own view that Islam has failed as a religion. When I draw a picture of Islam I see them as bigot people who are evil and can't respond to criticism with rational arguments. I know that this not all Muslims, and the good should condemn evil.

And how many muslims do you personally know? Out of these Muslims you know, how many of them are "evil and can't respond to criticism with rational arguments" ?

HelterSkelter

tonyj wrote:

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-1234375,00.html

Cardinal George Pell, the head of Australia's RC Church, made a valid point today;

"The violent reaction in many parts of the Islamic world justified one of Pope Benedict's main fears."

"They showed the link for many Islamists between religion and violence, their refusal to respond to criticism with rational arguments, but only with demonstrations, threats and actual violence."

Aaah come on, you are always going to get crackpots who will commit violent acts no matter what their religion is. It seems to me certain sections of the media like to make out that most muslims are like this when it is clearly not the case. There are between 1 & 2 million muslims in the UK and I didn't see any reports of violent protests.

RedPlanet

cyrus the virus wrote:

Yet I have not read one Muslim leader condemning 9/11 nor did I ever read one Muslim leader condemning 7/7 bombings.

Spend a minute of your time scrolling thru this page:
http://www.cair-net.org/html/911statements.html

You can be excused (to a degree), for your perception since it's probably formed by the mainstream media you tune-in to.
I've been visiting the CAIR website for a number of years (before 911) and i would characterise the US generally as being fairly intolerant, abusive, and discriminatory of muslims.
The ACLU is America's saving grace.

Sesshoumaru

RedPlanet wrote:

Spend a minute of your time scrolling thru this page:
http://www.cair-net.org/html/911statements.html

You can be excused (to a degree), for your perception since it's probably formed by the mainstream media you tune-in to.
I've been visiting the CAIR website for a number of years (before 911) and i would characterise the US generally as being fairly intolerant, abusive, and discriminatory of muslims.
The ACLU is America's saving grace.

http://www.meforum.org/article/916

Perhaps the most obvious problem with CAIR is the fact that at least five of its employees and board members have been arrested, convicted, deported, or otherwise linked to terrorism-related charges and activities.

Hobbes

Sesshoumaru if you want to continue to this line of discussion I suggest you take it to another forum (while reading Frank Grimes link). Politics or Humanities.

In meantime read up on the charter so you are aware of the types of discussion in the forum. Thanks.

T-1111111111111

HelterSkelter wrote:

What are you smoking my friend?!!There are 20,000 Muslims in Ireland. Don't you think there would be a bit more evil if this was true? As a matter of fact most of the destructive things in our society today are against Islamic beliefs, i.e. Alcohol, Drugs, Gambling, so you could argue that if we were all Muslims this country would be a much less evil place.


And how many muslims do you personally know? Out of these Muslims you know, how many of them are "evil and can't respond to criticism with rational arguments" ?

This is one the best statements on the whole forum. I'm not saying this because I myself am a Muslim but because I can see that somebody said the core of the truth in a few simple yet powerful sentences - that indeed evils of the modern world we live in are forbidden in Islam because they ruin individuals, families, neighbourhoods, countries and the whole world.

Well done HelterSkelter!

RedPlanet

Sesshoumaru wrote:

http://www.meforum.org/article/916

Wow and yet CAIR remain a perfectly legal entity that is not on anybody's list of "terrorist organisations".
How can that be Sesshoumaru?
You've got a right wing Christian fundie declaring god told him to invade other (muslim) countries, uses words like "crusade", walks all over the Geneva conventions, sets up massive internal spying and yet CAIR are not a terrorist organisation.

Do you believe CAIR is a terrorist organisation?
Do you believe they support terrorism Sesshoumaru?

Or maybe, those individuals were brought up on trumped up charges/or were a couple bad apples.

Insofar as i can tell from that biased site:
CAIR members:

Ismail Royer was convicted on "terrorism related charges"
Ghassan Elashi - illegally shopped comuters to Libya and Syria, did business with Hamas leader, allegedly provided than $12.4 million to Hamas.
Bassem Khafagi pleaded guilty in September 2003 to lying on his visa.
Rabih Haddad, was arrested in December 2001 on terrorism-related charges and passing bad checks.
Siraj Wahhaj, was named in 1995 by U.S. attorney Mary Jo White as a possible unindicted coconspirator in a plot.

Not too bad really, compared with the likes of Haliburton and i reckon CAIR have an outstanding track record.
Besides, what's wrong with Hamas and doing business with Libya and Syria? Sure the US itself does business with Syria (one of the places they ship ppl for torture).

Sesshoumaru

RedPlanet wrote:

Wow and yet CAIR remain a perfectly legal entity that is not on anybody's list of "terrorist organisations".
How can that be Sesshoumaru?
You've got a right wing Christian fundie declaring god told him to invade other (muslim) countries, uses words like "crusade", walks all over the Geneva conventions, sets up massive internal spying and yet CAIR are not a terrorist organisation.

Do you believe CAIR is a terrorist organisation?
Do you believe they support terrorism Sesshoumaru?

Or maybe, those individuals were brought up on trumped up charges/or were a couple bad apples.

Insofar as i can tell from that biased site:
CAIR members:

Ismail Royer was convicted on "terrorism related charges"
Ghassan Elashi - illegally shopped comuters to Libya and Syria, did business with Hamas leader, allegedly provided than $12.4 million to Hamas.
Bassem Khafagi pleaded guilty in September 2003 to lying on his visa.
Rabih Haddad, was arrested in December 2001 on terrorism-related charges and passing bad checks.
Siraj Wahhaj, was named in 1995 by U.S. attorney Mary Jo White as a possible unindicted coconspirator in a plot.

Not too bad really, compared with the likes of Haliburton and i reckon CAIR have an outstanding track record.
Besides, what's wrong with Hamas and doing business with Libya and Syria? Sure the US itself does business with Syria (one of the places they ship ppl for torture).

We can start a seperate thread in a more appropriate forum if you want? I think Hobbes was quite clear on this point.

the_new_mr

Was absent for a day there. Real-life and all that

Wibbs wrote:

I'll dig up the other hadith about the other killings where dissention even in poetry is rewarded by death. The one eyed shepherd is a very good example of an arbitory killing as he was hardly a "threat".

Dig it up by all means but keep in mind that there are a few possibilities.

a) The hadith is unauthentic (even if it is classified as sahih)
b) The hadith is authentic but there are some details missing (possibly present in another hadith... possibly not)

Also, keep in mind that the Prophet was often asked by his companions to pray to God to curse their enemies where the Prophet used to reply "How can I do that when God has sent me to be a mercy to the worlds?" which has back up in the Quran.

Wibbs wrote:

Well the Prophet had ordered his execution before taking Mecca, but he escaped. In the end I seem to remember he came to Mohammed when he was at prayer to talk. He was jumped on by some of the Prophets followers who asked if they should kill him(strange time to ask such a thing given they were at prayer). At that point Mohammed pardoned him as Abu had accepted him as a Prophet(and indeed rewarded him with title and goods later). Now the only difference is that he became a Muslim. If he had not he would likely have been killed. A cynic might think it was a good political move on the part of Abu Sufyan.

There are a few errors here.

First of all, there was a peace treaty between Medina and Mecca. Mecca broke it not too far in. Abu Sufyan travelled to Medina to talk to the Prophet (peace be upon him) to try to make another peace treaty after having one of those "What have I done?!!" moments. He talked to him at the mosque (not in prayer like you said) since that's where the Prophet lived. The companions may or may not have asked if he should be killed. Even if they did, clearly the Prophet commanded them not to kill him. Abu Sufyan had to go back to Mecca. Later, the Prophet came and took Mecca peacefully. I guess we'll never know whether Abu Sufyan truly embraced Islam or just did it for political reasons but it doesn't make any difference as worse people who were non-Muslims were left alone as well.

Wibbs wrote:

Sadly there's bias everywhere. One has to attempt to pick apart the guff from the facts. That's the duty of anyone looking for a middle ground.

Well, let me put it this way. The ratio is something like 100:1 (or more).

Wibbs wrote:

Really? Even if you watch al jazeera their slant is naturally towards their own audience.

Really. It's nothing like Sky, ABC or Fox. Believe me. Al-Jazeera often has criticism for arab governments as well as for western governments. And also, there aren't any dirty undertones with small remarks here and there trying to make you feel that the "others" are evil. Hoepfully you'll see this when Jazeera International goes live (in English).

/the_new_mr rushes to his TV to check if it has yet... and discovers not yet. Wikipedia says November 2006.

In the meantime:
http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage

Wibbs wrote:

There are many Muslim religious types with anti west leanings and pronouncments(and some who do not of course).

There are for sure. But it's some and many... not many and some.

Wibbs wrote:

There seems to me at least to be a tendency on the part of many Muslims to find bias and critique where little exists.

That's true I'll give you that. There's an old Arabic saying though. "He who gets burnt by the soup, blows onto the yogurt"

Schuhart wrote:

There’s a world of difference between the idea that the author deciding to withdraw it and being compelled to withdraw it.

There is, yes. But the main thing for me is that it's not there anymore.

Schuhart wrote:

I thought one was along the lines that Mary had a venereal disease.

More than one then.

Schuhart wrote:

I’d say mockery and humour is a justifiable tactic in response by people who regard the suggestion they are bound for hell as offensive.

We shall agree to disagree there.

Schuhart wrote:

That is more or less my point. You have to put up with the Pope quoting from 14th century texts when he finds it helpful to get his point across, and he has to put up with you saying Christ’s divinity is a disaster. Both of you have to put up with your doctrines being dismissed by others. I don’t want to pre-empt your response, but this doesn’t seem to be what’s happening.

In Islam, we say that Jesus (peace be upon him) is not divine. In Judaism, they don't believe Jesus (peace be upon him) or Mohamed (peace be upon him) were Prophets at all and in Christianity, they don't believe Mohamed (peace be upon him) was a Prophet either. That's fine and there's nothing wrong with that. Let each have their own religion.

I think anyone can see though that saying that Mohamed (peace be upon him) isn't a Prophet and quoting a 14th century Emperor that says that he "brought evil and inhuman things" is different. This seems particularly pointless when the Pope says that he doesn't even agree with said quote.

Schuhart wrote:

Does that include the right to accept converts from Islam? If not, its not full religious freedom.

I believe so.

Schuhart wrote:

Which basically amounts to you saying ‘We can say what we like about Jesus, because saying he’s not divine is a difference in creed but not slander. On the other hand, no-one can say anything we don’t like about Mohammed because that’s slander’.

No it doesn't amount to me saying that at all. A non-Muslim can say Mohamed (peace be upon him) isn't a Prophet if they want. They can even say that he's a herectic (which they do). But why oh why say such a silly quote when it won't accomplish anything?

Schuhart wrote:

I really cannot understand how they feel their believe in my eternal pain is in some way socially acceptable, while someone else’s idea that they are complete fools and should be laughed at is unacceptable.

I've been over this and over this but I shall say again that no human being can say for sure that another is going to hell.

Schuhart wrote:

But another point being missed is that because he’s the head of the Church, he must have some right to express his faith as he sees it. Hence my example of the Quran describing the divinity of Jesus as a disaster. Of course this has to be preached if it’s a central tenet of Islam. Similarly, the Pope has to preach to his flock.

That's all well and good. If he'd like to have an intellectual debate with a Muslim scholar on this then I'm sure there are literally hundreds that would welcome this. The late great Ahmed Deedat is one example of the kind of person that did things like this. The Pope is free as a bird to express his faith as he sees it. But why mention another faith in this way?

Good posts there from Frank Grimes (can I call you Grimsey? ), HelterSkelter, RedPlanet and T-1111111111111.

RedPlanet

Sesshoumaru wrote:

We can start a seperate thread in a more appropriate forum if you want? I think Hobbes was quite clear on this point.

Probably not necessary.
I googled the name Rabih Haddad, and have already made up my mind:
http://aa-peacemaking.quaker.org/haddad.html

Since you are providing editorials from the American right, i would hazard a guess that your opinion is already formed as well.

Hobbes

RedPlanet if you want to continue on this as mentioned before please take it to PM or another forum. thanks.

Wibbs

the_new_mr wrote:

Dig it up by all means but keep in mind that there are a few possibilities.

a) The hadith is unauthentic (even if it is classified as sahih)
b) The hadith is authentic but there are some details missing (possibly present in another hadith... possibly not)

There do seem to be many examples where Mohammed has people executed or killed by his order for purely disagreeing with him.

Also, keep in mind that the Prophet was often asked by his companions to pray to God to curse their enemies where the Prophet used to reply "How can I do that when God has sent me to be a mercy to the worlds?" which has back up in the Quran.

So why did he not turn the other cheek in the cases where he called for peoples deaths or admonish those who killed in his name(indeed killed and used deceit by His order to asassinate dissenters as in this case http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/019.smt.html#019.4436 ) The reason I find this relevant to the discussion is to compare how religious disagreement and percieved or otherwise insult was handled by the Prophet.

He talked to him at the mosque (not in prayer like you said) since that's where the Prophet lived.

He was at prayer when he arrived.

The companions may or may not have asked if he should be killed.

They did apparently.

Even if they did, clearly the Prophet commanded them not to kill him.

Only after he had said that he accepted the One God and Mohamed as his messenger. Now given that The Prophet had captured his daughter previously Abu wasn't in the best position, so he played it well(if that is indeed what he did)

Later, the Prophet came and took Mecca peacefully

Peace comes easier when one is at the head of a bigger army. The Meccans would have had little choice militarily. When they were in aposition of strength they had no problem fighting him.

I guess we'll never know whether Abu Sufyan truly embraced Islam or just did it for political reasons but it doesn't make any difference as worse people who were non-Muslims were left alone as well.

Like who?

Well, let me put it this way. The ratio is something like 100:1 (or more).

We'll agree to differ, I think. When the fake protocols of the elders of Zion and Mein Kampf are on open sale in many ME countries(seen it myself in Egypt on newspaper stands a few years back), it's not all one way.

Really. It's nothing like Sky, ABC or Fox.

Very little is in fairness. You're comparing apples and oranges really. They're not the best examples of "western" media.

And also, there aren't any dirty undertones with small remarks here and there trying to make you feel that the "others" are evil.

Again that may or may not be the case, but it does seem like paranoia to an outsider. It smacks of conspiracy against one group or another. as I said some of the Christian right are convinced of the same thing. Many Zionists (and Jews) are convinced there's an anti Jewish bias. Others think there's a pro Jewish bias. It can be argued there's a large anti American bias in the media. Now they may all be right, they may all be wrong. Maybe they're both right and wrong. The point is the Muslims aren't the only ones with a perceived axe to grind.

Hoepfully you'll see this when Jazeera International goes live (in English).

It'll be another string to the bow that's for sure.

In the meantime:
http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage

Yea have been checking it out for a while already.

There are for sure. But it's some and many... not many and some.

Again we could go around the block on this one.

That's true I'll give you that. There's an old Arabic saying though. "He who gets burnt by the soup, blows onto the yogurt"

Good one I'll remember that. Try turning down the gas on the soup, then you won't have to blow on the yoghurt... I'm wasted in my job really. I should be writing this stuff for christmas crackers and fortune cookies.

Schuhart

The_New_Mr wrote:

I believe so.

I understand that you personally believe that the concept of no compulsion in religion means that persons born into Islam or who convert to Islam must have the right to convert to other faiths or none. My point was more to suggest that mainstream Islamic doctrine is that no Muslim can change religion. In stating this I’m mindful that I’m probably in danger of straying off the charter, but I honestly don’t see how else to answer your post.

I've been over this and over this but I shall say again that no human being can say for sure that another is going to hell.

At the same time, in other discussions I think we’ve seen (quite reasonably) that its unlikely that Islam would see many Christians being saved, it just doesn’t absolutely rule out the possibility that a few might be. I’ve probably read enough of the Quran and about Islam generally at this stage to be deemed to have consciously rejected the faith, so my damnation is assured – subject only to judgement being a prerogative of god. Can you not see that preaching a doctrine that I and people like me are damned could be deemed to be pretty insulting? It amounts to suggesting that the moral choices taken by people are radically wrong. There’s nothing particularly wrong with having that belief – but you must surely appreciate that people will feel moved to say some equally strong things back to you, including ridicule. Maybe I’m missing something, but I don’t see someone laughing at you as being as bad as an eternity in hell.

The Pope is free as a bird to express his faith as he sees it. But why mention another faith in this way?

I know we’re starting to circle, but the original point still stands. If the Pope sees a 14th century quote as useful to expressing the faith – which I take it he feels is a god-given duty – then what right have you or anyone else to complain?

As is clear from his speech, he’s not actually suggesting Islam is evil at all. He is suggesting Islam’s conception of god is not based on reason. Equally, the point still stands. The Quran states that the core Christian belief of the divinity of Christ is a disaster. They could, if they wanted, get on their high horse and complain that there is no greater insult than venerating the son of god as if he was merely a mortal prophet. But they don’t.

I don’t know if this closes the gap, but how would you feel if the Pope was quoted as saying the Quran is a disaster?