Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Popes comments about Islam.
Comments
-
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.0
-
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.0 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,163 Mod ✭✭✭✭Join Date:Posts: 59091
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.
As for your surname, I've no idea what it is, but I take your point.Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
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.0
-
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.0 -
Advertisement
-
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!0
-
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.0 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,163 Mod ✭✭✭✭Join Date:Posts: 59091
mysteria wrote: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.Religion as we know all too well is always an inflammatory subject and in the current political climate the worldwide reaction speaks for itself.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.Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
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.Schuhart wrote:nor do I feel an intense need to pen cartoons mocking the idea of the virgin birth.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.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?
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.
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.Wibbs wrote:Hobbes wrote:The actions of the minority does not reflect the religon as a whole.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.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).Wibbs wrote:Then again anti western feeling seems very easy to ignite in some sections of the Muslim world.Wibbs wrote:and the Muslim world is just as led by their media and leaders if not more so.Wibbs wrote:Could we be even having this debate in some parts of the Muslim world? No would be your answer.mysteria wrote:Peace be with you all.
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/DIEZone0 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,163 Mod ✭✭✭✭Join Date:Posts: 59091
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)
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.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.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.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.Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
Advertisement
-
the_new_mr wrote:Well, at least it was withdrawn. That's the main thing.the_new_mr wrote:Did I read about a different cartoon incident or was that you just stating something as an example?And yet by doing so, they offend literally millions of people.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.To each their own and that's that.0
-
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.0 -
Hobbes wrote:He didn't do either. He clarified what it was he said and apologised that he may of caused offense.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.
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.
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.
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?0 -
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."0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0
-
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.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.0
-
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.0 -
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.
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.0 -
Advertisement
-
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/916Perhaps 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.0 -
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.0 -
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!0 -
Sesshoumaru wrote:
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).0 -
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.0 -
Was absent for a day there. Real-life and all thatWibbs 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".
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.
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.Wibbs wrote:Really? Even if you watch al jazeera their slant is naturally towards their own audience.
/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/HomePageWibbs wrote:There are many Muslim religious types with anti west leanings and pronouncments(and some who do not of course).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.Schuhart wrote:There’s a world of difference between the idea that the author deciding to withdraw it and being compelled to withdraw it.Schuhart wrote:I thought one was along the lines that Mary had a venereal disease.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.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.
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.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’.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.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.
Good posts there from Frank Grimes (can I call you Grimsey?), HelterSkelter, RedPlanet and T-1111111111111.
0 -
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.0 -
RedPlanet if you want to continue on this as mentioned before please take it to PM or another forum. thanks.0
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,163 Mod ✭✭✭✭Join Date:Posts: 59091
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)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.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.Later, the Prophet came and took Mecca peacefullyI 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.Well, let me put it this way. The ratio is something like 100:1 (or more).Really. It's nothing like Sky, ABC or Fox.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).In the meantime:
http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePageThere are for sure. But it's some and many... not many and some.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.
Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
Advertisement
-
The_New_Mr wrote:I believe so.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.The Pope is free as a bird to express his faith as he sees it. But why mention another faith in this way?
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?0
Advertisement