Should the Pope apologize??

Ok, so the Pope offered an apology. Many didn't accept it and wanted a TRUE apology.

Ok, so lets assume the Pope offeres an apology that satisfies everyone that was offended.

Do you think that the people who burned the Churchs should offer to pay for the rebuilding?

Do you think the person who killed the nun should raise her from the dead?

Do you think any of the persons who caused harm to people or property should be held accountable (sent to jail or fined)?

Do you think they will retract the call to have him killed?
 
Kendra17 said:
Your response is essentially a negation of our capabilities and will.
This is defeatism.
I agree with you on one point only, and that is that we must strengthen our borders and enforce our immigration laws. The failure to do this is grounds for legal action against the President and other leaders in our government.
You are suggesting isolationism similar to the thinking popular in this country on the eve of ww2. Pearl Harbor eradicated almost all of the isolation sentiment in this country. The fact that 911 has seemed to increase isolationist sentiment is extremely troubling.

We must be concerned for our allies, and for our friends around the world.
As it has been shown in historical sources, after Hitler conquered all of Europe, Germany would then turn its attentions to the US. So, as it is today. The situation is similar.
But because this is a global supranational movement so many cannot wrap their brains around the concepts and the present dangers.

This is an existential fight we are in. The terrorists, while they have but few states, including Iran and Syria, that we can hit, (Afghanistan being the best example) - they do have states that give them safe harbor, funding, and protection. It is these states that we will target and deal with, as well as dealing with the stateless killers directly wherever they happen to be.

It's really nowhere as complex as you make it out to be.

You really believe that the US cannot build or create the wealth and treasure necessary to defend itself and our allies? You clearly do not read or understand history.
You really believe that our military "is spread too thin"? This is the wailing absurdity of the do-nothing-i-hate-bush-and-let's-impeach-him ignorant Leftist elite in this country and in Europe. It is not a real "position". It is simply an ANTI position with nothing of moment to add to the discussion but obstructing the government in doing its job and fulfilling its mandate to protect the Constitution and the country.

How anyone can support any Democratic politician in this country is simply beyond my comprehension. The Democratic party is not a loyal opposition party. Their leadership would have been arrested by Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War for sedition and treason. The patience of George Bush is stunning and will certainly be applauded by historians for generations while the bleating of the liberal left will end up in the trash heap of history where it belongs with the Soviet Union.
How does one look at one's children and grandchildren without fear for their futures because of this current conflict? It is our responsibility to do our best for them and not leave it for them to deal with, or worse, leave them without a free country and a free world in which to live. We are obligated to take vigorous action against a vicious enemy whose only goal is our destruction. Why you cannot see this or understand it is simply incomprehensible.Think about it, ok?


I thought you said our allies are worthless? Yet you feel the need to be concerned for them. Interesting.



I did think about it. I disagree with just about everything you said, some of it vehemently, and I would find it easier, and I might be more prone to want to understand to attempt to understand your position, if I didn't have to be confronted with the above bolded statements which you feel the need to include in all your posts when someone disagrees with you..
 
Do you think that the people who burned the Churchs should offer to pay for the rebuilding?

Yes, and do prison time.

Do you think the person who killed the nun should raise her from the dead?

I'll give a rational answer to an irrational question. They should pay money damages to her order to compensate for her lost income and do prison time for the murder.

Do you think any of the persons who caused harm to people or property should be held accountable (sent to jail or fined)?

Absolutely! Attempted murder, assualt, battery, destruction of property-those are the first things that I can think of.
 
LuvDuke said:
Finally, you out yourself as being a clueless demagogue with this: "Muslims believe in the Koran LITERALLY." And here's the definition of a "demagogy" if you don't know what that definition is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demagogue

"a political strategy for obtaining and gaining political power by appealing to the popular prejudices, fears, and expectations of the public — typically via impassioned rhetoric and propaganda, and often using nationalistic or populist themes."

I'll let the peanut gallery decide if this fits like liquid latex or not.

FYI, not all Muslims believe in the Koran literally, just like not all Christians believe in the Bible literally. There's a myriad of opinions as to what each teaches and what each individual chooses to believe.

As far as you deciding who's a reasonable person and who isn't, please, let's not give the peanut gallery something more to laugh at.

The fact is, demagogues like you should be the last people responsible for the decision making regarding terrorism and radical fundamentalist Islam. You paint everything in black and white and force people on the other side to choose between your lunacy and their own fellow Muslims. People like you leave no room for dissent within the Islamic community and force people to the fringes with your rhetoric.

And if for one damned I believed that anything you espouse is for the good of the country or humanity in general, I might just give it a second thought. It isn't for the good of the country or humanity, but for your own ego and political fringe radicalism. Your ravings are self-serving hysterics at best, and at worst, downright dangerous when they're used as the basis for decision making.
You can continue to deny that Muslims believe in the Koran literally, but they truly do. This is an important distinction, and one you fail to accept.

It is interesting to note that between your extravagantly enthusiastic insults, you may have just admitted that there may be a problem with the Koran! For instance, you are stating that not all Muslims do actually believe in the Koran literally-- and the implication here is that (Political) Islam is not dangerous since they do not believe in the Koran literally. The implication is that it WOULD be dangerous then if they all did believe in it literally?

Even "moderate" Muslims who have posted here have never discounted the Koran. They have never stated they don't believe in it as literal truth. When moderate Muslims have posted here and elsewhere, they state that they quote the earlier surrahs, written when Muhammed was in Mecca. They ignore (during the debate) the later surrahs, written in Medina. Never ONCE have they discounted the validity of the Koran itself.

Both Salih Bukhari and Salih Muslim agree that the later surrahs abrogate the earlier surrahs. Not ONE Muslim has publicly stated that these most popular and most accepted ahadith should be discounted. Not ONE Muslim has publicly stated that there is undue violence in the Koran and that it should be discounted, as well. What they have said is that they do not advocate violence. The problem is that there is a duality in Islam. There is one set of morals and values that pertain to Muslims when they deal with other Muslims. There is an entire different set of values and morals and ethics that pertain to Muslims in their dealings with nonMuslims.

Just 'cause you don't like it doesn't mean it's not true.

So, you are wrong-- despite your rhetoric.
 

eclectics said:
I thought you said our allies are worthless? Yet you feel the need to be concerned for them. Interesting.



I did think about it. I disagree with just about everything you said, some of it vehemently, and I would find it easier, and I might be more prone to want to understand to attempt to understand your position, if I didn't have to be confronted with the above bolded statements which you feel the need to include in all your posts when someone disagrees with you..
I wish you would forgive the comments that offend you (the bolded statements) and be able to look at the meaning of the post in general. There are one or two people on your side that post pretty angrily, and sometimes I am responding to that attitude. . . not really you. As a matter of fact, there's a poster on this page specifically. ;)

Let me clarify. I think those that disagree with my views on this subject have intrinsic worth, just as I believe that those that agree with me have intrinsic worth. I believe all of us have value and intrinsic worth.

So, when I categorized our "allies" as worthless, I specifically meant as partners in this confict we can rely on. I did not mean to imply that I believe they now have no value or worth as living people. I find it hard to believe you truly-- honestly-- believe that is what I meant, but if you really did believe that, I want to absolutely clarify that for you under no uncertain terms.

I believe that vigorously fighting our enemy is the correct thing to do. And, I do have concern for those around the world and believe that fighting our enemy wherever they may be is indicative of this. I do not believe that ONLY strengthening our borders is the answer (although it is ALSO necessary). I do not believe in isolationist behavior. Most people desire liberty and the pursuit of happiness, not just Americans. Unfortunately, too many don't recognize our liberty and the right to pursue happiness are at risk yet (the exception of the fear of the Left of the current administration is duly noted).
 
Kendra17 said:
Both Salih Bukhari and Salih Muslim agree that the later surrahs abrogate the earlier surrahs. Not ONE Muslim has publicly stated that these most popular and most accepted ahadith should be discounted. Not ONE Muslim has publicly stated that there is undue violence in the Koran and that it should be discounted, as well. What they have said is that they do not advocate violence. The problem is that there is a duality in Islam. There is one set of morals and values that pertain to Muslims when they deal with other Muslims. There is an entire different set of values and morals and ethics that pertain to Muslims in their dealings with nonMuslims.

The surahs are not arranged in chronological order (in the order in which Islamic scholars believe they were revealed) but in a different order, roughly descending by size.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quran



The abrogation of Quranic verses, arguably the greatest lie against the Quran, was originally invented during the fourth century A.H. (late 10th century A.D.) by some Muslim scholars notably Ahmed Bin Ishaq Al-Dinary (died 318 A.H.), Mohamad Bin Bahr Al-Asbahany (died 322 A.H.), Hebat Allah Bin Salamah (died 410 A.H.) and Mohamad Bin Mousa Al-Hazmy (died 548 A.H.), whose book about Al-Nasekh and Al-Mansoukh is regarded as one of the leading references in the subject.

This concept invented originally by these scholars, claims that there are some verses in the Quran that have been abrogated and invalidated by other verses!
http://www.submission.org/abrogation.html

I struggled with the question of how an eternal revelation of Allah could have such time-bound revelation in it. It seemed at odds with the nature of Allah – the all-knowing, all-wise, creator and sustainer of the universe; the eternal, self-existent one. As a Muslim this was one of the bigger challenges I faced with regard to the Quran. Although the Quran is said to be an eternal and universal scripture, I found it to be time-bound.

Not all Muslim scholars agree on what abrogation covers. Briefly here was my discovery.

.Muslim scholars of old hold to the concept that some ayahs in the Quran abrogate other ayahs in the Quran, but do not all hold to the same set of abrogated and abrogating ayahs.
.Other Muslim scholars are of the opinion that the Quran may abrogate the Quran as well as the Sunnah (deed or example of Mohammad) and vice versa.
.Some Muslim scholars hold that the Quran abrogates all the previous scriptures, specifically the scriptures sent to Musa and Isa, but not itself.
.Some Muslim scholars, especially of recent times do not believe in the concept of abrogation at all.
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Authors/Farooq_Ibrahim/abrogation.htm




Kendra17 said:
Just 'cause you don't like it doesn't mean it's not true.
That's the truth.
 
Kendra17 said:
You can continue to deny that Muslims believe in the Koran literally, but they truly do. This is an important distinction, and one you fail to accept.

It is interesting to note that between your extravagantly enthusiastic insults, you may have just admitted that there may be a problem with the Koran! For instance, you are stating that not all Muslims do actually believe in the Koran literally-- and the implication here is that (Political) Islam is not dangerous since they do not believe in the Koran literally. The implication is that it WOULD be dangerous then if they all did believe in it literally?

Even "moderate" Muslims who have posted here have never discounted the Koran. They have never stated they don't believe in it as literal truth. When moderate Muslims have posted here and elsewhere, they state that they quote the earlier surrahs, written when Muhammed was in Mecca. They ignore (during the debate) the later surrahs, written in Medina. Never ONCE have they discounted the validity of the Koran itself.

Both Salih Bukhari and Salih Muslim agree that the later surrahs abrogate the earlier surrahs. Not ONE Muslim has publicly stated that these most popular and most accepted ahadith should be discounted. Not ONE Muslim has publicly stated that there is undue violence in the Koran and that it should be discounted, as well. What they have said is that they do not advocate violence. The problem is that there is a duality in Islam. There is one set of morals and values that pertain to Muslims when they deal with other Muslims. There is an entire different set of values and morals and ethics that pertain to Muslims in their dealings with nonMuslims.

Just 'cause you don't like it doesn't mean it's not true.

So, you are wrong-- despite your rhetoric.

You're like the gift that keeps on giving. Keep up the good work. You're doing a fine job. :thumbsup2

Let me see if I can follow your "logic" ........... pardon me, :lmao: .

Your contention is because Muslims believe in the Koran, that means literally and in it's entirety? Is that it?

Do you also believe that all Christians believe in the Bible and that means literally and in it's entirety? Do you also believe all Jews believe in the Old Testament and that means literally and in it's entirety?

Or do you just reserve your rhetoric for Muslims?

Btw, here's where you truly show your hand:

Kendra17 said:
It is interesting to note that between your extravagantly enthusiastic insults, you may have just admitted that there may be a problem with the Koran! For instance, you are stating that not all Muslims do actually believe in the Koran literally-- and the implication here is that (Political) Islam is not dangerous since they do not believe in the Koran literally. The implication is that it WOULD be dangerous then if they all did believe in it literally?

If there's a problem with the Koran, well I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings, but there's the same problem with the Bible. There's plenty of smiting and smoting and stoning and calls for killing there also.

FYI, I think all fanatics are dangerous be they religious (Christian, Muslim, Jew and whatever the else is out there) or political. Fanatics don't think straight because they don't think with their brains but with their gonads and back passages and then use the most extravagant rhetoric to build hatred and prejudice. If the shoe fits, wear it.

Btw, since when does any moderate Muslim have to denounce the Koran? Does your ego also require Christians to denounce the Bible?

And one last thing: Everytime you play Islamic scholar and attempt to "educate" the rest of us and try to dazzle us with your grasp of the intricacies of Islam, you give further creedence to the old adage: A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
 
Galahad said:
I did? Where?
Sorry, my bad. You said, "Otherwise there would not be divisions among Muslims (Shiites, Suni's etc)". You did not say warring. However, sometimes these divisions do include warring, even though you didn't phrase it this way.
 
eclectics said:
I thought you said our allies are worthless? Yet you feel the need to be concerned for them. Interesting.



I did think about it. I disagree with just about everything you said, some of it vehemently, and I would find it easier, and I might be more prone to want to understand to attempt to understand your position, if I didn't have to be confronted with the above bolded statements which you feel the need to include in all your posts when someone disagrees with you..

It's the same old-same old from our self-proclaimed resident Islamic scholar: Open mouth, insert foot, remove foot, and backpedal like crazy.
 
Kendra17 said:
I wish you would forgive the comments that offend you (the bolded statements) and be able to look at the meaning of the post in general. There are one or two people on your side that post pretty angrily, and sometimes I am responding to that attitude. . . not really you. As a matter of fact, there's a poster on this page specifically. ;)

Let me clarify. I think those that disagree with my views on this subject have intrinsic worth, just as I believe that those that agree with me have intrinsic worth. I believe all of us have value and intrinsic worth.

So, when I categorized our "allies" as worthless, I specifically meant as partners in this confict we can rely on. I did not mean to imply that I believe they now have no value or worth as living people. I find it hard to believe you truly-- honestly-- believe that is what I meant, but if you really did believe that, I want to absolutely clarify that for you under no uncertain terms.

I believe that vigorously fighting our enemy is the correct thing to do. And, I do have concern for those around the world and believe that fighting our enemy wherever they may be is indicative of this. I do not believe that ONLY strengthening our borders is the answer (although it is ALSO necessary). I do not believe in isolationist behavior. Most people desire liberty and the pursuit of happiness, not just Americans. Unfortunately, too many don't recognize our liberty and the right to pursue happiness are at risk yet (the exception of the fear of the Left of the current administration is duly noted).


I'm not offended. I have a thicker skin than that. I just think comments like that are counter productive when you are trying to make a point. Sometimes barbs are justified and do indeed belong, but when someone is trying to understand where someone is coming from, they have a tendency to get in the way. Just speaking for myself, of course. I understand your concerns and I think I understand what you want to have happen, but I still say it is unrealistic to expect all you want to occur to actually happen, looking at this country's and the world's big picture. I think we should pick our battles very, very, carefully. And I am unwavering in wishing any extra resources this country finds itself with should be used here at home. The world is a very different place nowdays and we as a people have to make adjustments in what we percieve our obligations are to the rest of the world. I'm not advocating abandonment. I just say proceed with caution.
 
display.image


Yes Sir, the religion of peace at work. :rolleyes:
 
Laura said:
Laura, I know exactly how the Koran is organized. Still, we also know the chronological order of the Surahs despite how they are organizedin the Koran itself. When read in combination with the Sira, there is a historical context for every surah. Your have not proven a point here, Laura.

Many Muslims disagree with the page you provided regarding the abrogation of Surahs, as this page itself reads. On the other hand, the page you provided states that the Koran is a perfect book, absolutely literal and perfect. So again, your point is nonexistent, since the Koran encourages jihadist activity and advocates and encourages death and enslavement against nonMuslims, and the page you provide as reference states everything the Koran says is perfect.

Another problem with this version of belief (non-abrogation) is that Muhammed was very specific and contradictory at different times. Only in the beginning (in Mecca) did he say "there is no compulsion in religion". Later, he HIMSELF stated that Allah gave him new and different revelations/instructions, Laura. Later, he said there WAS to be only one religion and encouraged bloodshed. His later years, before death, were full of instructions and revelations such as this to other Muslims.

Even if the page you provide states that each Surah is perfect and has never been "abrogated", Muhammed himself "abrogated" and discounted earlier Surahs. So, you can say that each Surah is equally valid, but if this is the case, then Muhammed's own pronouncement after each new contradictory pronouncement/revelation-- that Allah was now giving him new and different instructions superseding previous instructions-- are also valid.
 
LuvDuke said:
It's the same old-same old from our self-proclaimed resident Islamic scholar: Open mouth, insert foot, remove foot, and backpedal like crazy.

Can you deny that the reactions by (some) Muslims (didn't hear of any large groups of non-Muslims protesting, bombing Church's or killing people) was ironically depicting of what the Pope said?

You seem to be saying that Kendra's comments about the reactions are more dangerous than the events themselves. If the events didn't occur, would we be even having this discussion? And if we go back in time to the Pope's comments and extract them from his speech, the events wouldn't have occurred. Some people don't like to have their religion criticized but it's not a justification for harmful and deadly reactions. THAT is the issue.
 
I reckon that religion is built to be abused. That is, it has the capacity to be abused even if the upmost care is taken to ensure that this does not happen.

Why? Because religion is fundamentally connected to the basic and humanistic aspects of our souls.

Friction, for example, still exists between Catholicism and Protestantism in Ireland, despite the fact that the two religions teach peace and love as their core ideals.



Rich::
 
LuvDuke said:
You're like the gift that keeps on giving. Keep up the good work. You're doing a fine job. :thumbsup2

Let me see if I can follow your "logic" ........... pardon me, :lmao: .

Your contention is because Muslims believe in the Koran, that means literally and in it's entirety? Is that it?

Do you also believe that all Christians believe in the Bible and that means literally and in it's entirety? Do you also believe all Jews believe in the Old Testament and that means literally and in it's entirety?

Or do you just reserve your rhetoric for Muslims?

Btw, here's where you truly show your hand:



If there's a problem with the Koran, well I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings, but there's the same problem with the Bible. There's plenty of smiting and smoting and stoning and calls for killing there also.

FYI, I think all fanatics are dangerous be they religious (Christian, Muslim, Jew and whatever the else is out there) or political. Fanatics don't think straight because they don't think with their brains but with their gonads and back passages and then use the most extravagant rhetoric to build hatred and prejudice. If the shoe fits, wear it.

Btw, since when does any moderate Muslim have to denounce the Koran? Does your ego also require Christians to denounce the Bible?

And one last thing: Everytime you play Islamic scholar and attempt to "educate" the rest of us and try to dazzle us with your grasp of the intricacies of Islam, you give further creedence to the old adage: A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
There may or may not be a problem with the Bible. It's really besides the point since there isn't much violence being perpetuated by these groups in the name of God. With very very few exceptions, there is no violence being committed in the name of God and encouraged by church and synagogue leaders. Judaic and Christian curriculum doesn't include teaching to hate and kill Muslims or those outside 'the faith'.

I take issue with your "one last thing" (oh, I hope it truly is your one last thing, but I bet it's not!). A little knowledge, like you have, is extremely dangerous. You need to get a lot more knowledge so you can truly discuss the content of the "perfect" Koran, Sira, and ahadith. When you can truly discuss the content and dual ethics, maybe you will actually make an intelligent debate partner. Until then. . .

Your argument of relativism doesn't work, though you keep attempting to use it unsuccessfully.

Edited to add: I have no problem with people believing whatever they want to believe. Do they want to believe the Koran is perfect? Do I care if they believe heaven is unending sex with 72 virgins? Do I care that they believe they must enter the toilet area with their left foot? Do I care that they must wipe their butts after elimination an odd number of times? I don't care what Muslims believe. Do I care they think Jews were changed into rats and apes? Whatever they believe is fine-- we have freedom of religion. What I have a problem with is political Islam. . . those that practice their beliefs on the rest of us. You should have a problem with that, too. All of you should. That is the political part of Islam. Political Islam is dangerous for the rest of us. Political Christianity and Political Judaism is not.
 
Kendra17 said:
Laura, I know exactly how the Koran is organized. Still, we also know the chronological order of the Surahs despite how they are organizedin the Koran itself. When read in combination with the Sira, there is a historical context for every surah. Your have made not proven a point here, Laura.

Many Muslims disagree with the page you provided regarding the abrogation of Surahs, as this page itself reads. On the other hand, the page you provided states that the Koran is a perfect book, absolutely literal and perfect. So again, your point is nonexistent, since the Koran encourages jihadist activity and advocates and encourages death and enslavement against nonMuslims, and the page you provide as reference states everything the Koran says is perfect.

Another problem with this version of belief (non-abrogation) is that Muhammed was very specific and contradictory at different times. Only in the beginning (in Mecca) did he say "there is no compulsion in religion". Later, he HIMSELF stated that Allah gave him new and different revelations/instructions, Laura. Later, he said there WAS to be only one religion and encouraged bloodshed. His later years, before death, were full of instructions and revelations such as this to other Muslims.

Even if the page you provide states that each Surah is perfect and has never been "abrogated", Muhammed himself "abrogated" and discounted earlier Surahs. So, you can say that each Surah is equally valid, but if this is the case, then Muhammed's own pronouncement after each new contradictory pronouncement/revelation-- that Allah was now giving him new and different instructions superseding previous instructions-- are also valid.

"Many Muslims disagree...."
That was my point. Sorry you missed it, Kendra. What's more, you may know the organization of the Qur'an, but you didn't explain here what the organization of the surahs are. You don't want to go into how there are multiple interpretations of the Qur'an, you just want to freak us all out by "informing" us that all Muslims are of like mind and want to slaughter us.

One of the many short comings which has arisen in the West, is judging Islam by the conduct of a minority of its people. By doing this, segments of Western society have deliberately played off the desperate actions of many Muslims, and have given it the name of Islam. Such behaviour is clearly not objective and seeks to distort the reality of Islam. For if such a thing was done - judge a religion by the conduct of its people - then we too could say that all Christianity is about is child molesting and homosexuality [1] whilst Hinduism was all about looting and breaking up mosques [2]. Generalising in such a manner is not seen as being objective, yet we find that the Western world is foremost in propagating this outlook on Islam. So what is the reality of Islam? How does one dispel the myths which have been created and spread so viciously? The only way to examine Islam is to simply examine its belief system. Look at its sources, the Qur'an and Sunna, and see what they have to say. This is the way to find the truth about what Islam says about terror, terrorism and terrorists. One who is sincerely searching for the truth, will do it no other way. The very name Islam comes from the Arabic root word 'salama' which means peace. Islam is a religion which is based upon achieving peace through the submission to the will of Allah. Thus, by this very simple linguistic definition, one can ascertain as to what the nature of this religion is. If such a religion is based on the notion of peace, then how is it that so many acts done by its adherents are contrary to peace? The answer is simple. Such actions, if not sanctioned by the religion, have no place with it. They are not Islamic and should not be thought of as Islamic.

Jihad

The word jihad sends shivers down the spines of many Westerners. They readily equate this term with violence and oppression. However, it must be said that the meaning of jihad, as a 'holy war', is something which is totally foreign and not from Islam. If anything, such a description belongs more so to Christianity and its adherents. It was terms like this which were used to justify the slaughter and pillage of towns and cities during the crusades by the Christians. By simply looking into the sources of Islam, one is able to know that the true meaning of jihad is to strive/make effort in the way of Allah. Thus striving in the way of Allah can be both peaceful and physical. The Prophet Muhammed (saws) said:

"The best jihad is (by) the one who strives against his own self for Allah, The Mighty and Majestic" [3]

In the Qur'an, Allah also says:

"So obey not the disbelievers, but make a great jihad (effort) against them (by preaching) with it (the Qur'an)"
(Surah Al-Furqan 25:52)

By controlling and fighting against ones desires, the Muslims can then also physically exert themselves in the path of Allah. It is this physical or combative jihad which receives so much criticism. Because of the sheer ignorance of this type of jihad Islam is regarded as terror, and Muslims are regarded as terrorists. However, the very purpose of this physical jihad is to raise the word of Allah uppermost. By doing this, it liberates and emancipates all those who are crying out for freedom all over the world. If the likes of the pacifists of this world had their way, then the world would indeed be full of anarchy and mischief. The combative jihad seeks to correct this as Allah says in the Qur'an:

"And if Allah did not check one set of people by means of another, the Earth would be full of mischief. But Allah is full of bounty to the worlds"
(Surah Al-Baqarah 2:251)

Such would be the corruption on this Earth if there had never been a combative jihad that Allah says:

"For had it not been that Allah checks one set of people by means of another, monasteries, churches, synagogues and mosques, wherein the name of Allah is mentioned much, would surely have been pulled down. Indeed Allah will help those who help His (cause). Truly Allah is All strong, All mighty"
(Surah Al-Hajj 22:40)

This combative jihad being both defensive and offensive, is something which is commanded by Allah upon the Muslims. Through this command the oppressed and weak are rescued from the tyranny of the world:

"And what is the matter with you that you do not fight in the cause of Allah and for those weak, ill treated and oppressed among men, women and children whose only cry is; 'Our Lord, rescue us from this town whose people are oppressors and raise for us from you one who will protect and raise for us from you one who will help"
(Surah An-Nisa 4:75)

Anyone who knows the early history of Islam, will know that all those nations and empires which came under the fold of Islam were indeed previously oppressed. When the companions of the Prophet Muhammed (saws) went out for the offensive jihad against the Egyptians, the Persians and the Romans, we find that the people did not resist against them at all. Rather, they accepted Islam on such a scale, that it is inconceivable that the jihad of Islam could be anything other then a liberation for these people; a liberation from centuries of tyranny. In fact, with the Byzantine Egyptians and the people of Spain, the Muslims were even beckoned to come and liberate these lands from the oppression of their kings. This is the glorious track record of the Muslim jihad. Compare this with the brutal track record of warfare in the Western world over the centuries. From the crusades against the Muslims to the days of colonial warfare, the Western world has killed, destroyed and plundered everything which has come in its way. Even today this merciless killing goes on by the Western nations. While claiming to be about world peace and security, Western nations are ready to bomb innocent civilians at the drop of a hat. The classic example of this is the recent bombings of Sudan and Afghanistan. Whilst claiming that Sudan and Afghanistan were havens for Islamic terrorists, the bombings of these two nations could not have come at a better time for the American president Bill Clinton. The destruction of innocent lives which were a result of these bombings clearly seem to have been an attempt by Clinton to avert attention away from his sexual misdemeanours; [4] something which he so often gets caught up in. Without doubt this was the reason for such terror from the American military upon innocent people. This is the same American military which claims to enter the worlds trouble spots under the guise of being peace keepers. But

"… when it is said to them; 'Make not mischief on the Earth', they say; 'We are only peace makers'. Indeed they are the ones who make mischief, but they perceive it not"
(Surah Al-Baqarah 2:11-12)

The hypocrisy of the West is indeed astounding.
http://thetruereligion.org/modules/wfsection/article.php?articleid=63

'Ilmu 'I-Usul, or the Exegesis of the Qur’an, is a very important science, and is used by the Muslim divine to explain away many apparent or real contradictions. The most authoritative works on the' llmu- Usul of the Qur'an, are Manaru 'I-Usul and its commentary, the Nuru 'I-Anwar, and as-Suyuti's Itqan (ed. by Sprenger). The various laws of interpretation laid down in these books are very complicated, requiring the most careful study. We have only space for a mere outline of the system.

The words (alfaz) of the Qur’an are of four classes: Khass, 'Amm, Mushtarak, and Mu'awwal.

(1) Khass Words used in a special sense. This specialty of sense is of three kinds: Khususu'l-jins, Specialty of genus, e.g. mankind; Khususu 'n-nau', Specialty of species, e.g. a man; khususu'l -'ain, Specialty of an individual, e.g. Muhammad.

(2) 'Amm Collective or common, which embrace many individuals or things, e.g. people.

(3) Mushtarak Complex words which have several signification e.g. ain, a word which signifies an Eye, a Fountain, the Knee, or the Sun.

(4.) Mu'awwal words which have several significations, all of which are possible, and so a special explanation is required. For example, Surah cviii. 2, reads thus in Sale's translation. "Wherefore pray unto the Lord and slag (the victims)." The word translated "slay" is in Arabic inhar, from the root nahr, which has several meanings. The followers of the great Legist, Abu Hanifah, render it "sacrifice," and add the words (the "victims "). The followers of Ibn Ash- Shafi'i say it means" placing the hands on the breast in prayer."
http://muslim-canada.org/quran_interpretation.html



Step by step, it's easy to show you haven't a clue how to interpret the Qur'an. (Me, I leave that to the Muslims.) What's more, you don't seem to have any basis for your interpretation. You see what you want to see, state your "vision", and when shown proof of your error, begin to backpedal. It's very amusing.
 
Charade said:
Can you deny that the reactions by (some) Muslims (didn't hear of any large groups of non-Muslims protesting, bombing Church's or killing people) was ironically depicting of what the Pope said?

You seem to be saying that Kendra's comments about the reactions are more dangerous than the events themselves. If the events didn't occur, would we be even having this discussion? And if we go back in time to the Pope's comments and extract them from his speech, the events wouldn't have occurred. Some people don't like to have their religion criticized but it's not a justification for harmful and deadly reactions. THAT is the issue.

No, this thread's subject is whether or not the pope should apologize. You want to make it something bigger because it suits your political philosophy.

IMO, the Pope as the representative of over 1 billion Catholics, no longer has the luxury of being provocative because what he says has consequences. How a seemingly intelligent man like Pope Benedict could not see that is beyond me. Or maybe he did see and he did it anyway? I can't look into the man's heart and neither can anyone else.

As a former Catholic, I don't really give a crap if he apologizes or treats his local muslim cleric to a weekend in Las Vegas. My point is he should never have said it all.

Now why is that so hard for you to grasp?
 
transparant said:
I find it ironic that the muslims are using violence to protest a comment made by the Pope that Islam uses evil and violent means to spread their religion. What does that say about the accuracy of the Pope's statement?

EXACTLY!!!! Why do so many people MISS THIS?
 


Disney Vacation Planning. Free. Done for You.
Our Authorized Disney Vacation Planners are here to provide personalized, expert advice, answer every question, and uncover the best discounts. Let Dreams Unlimited Travel take care of all the details, so you can sit back, relax, and enjoy a stress-free vacation.
Start Your Disney Vacation
Disney EarMarked Producer






DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter

Add as a preferred source on Google

Back
Top Bottom