New Delhi, India - An intriguing part of the conversation between the Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus and "an educated Persian" now made world-famous by Pope Benedict XVI, is that the Persian seems to have no name. There is no mention of it in the speech made by the Holy Father during his "Apostolic Journey" to the University of Regensburg on 9/12.
The Persian must have been an intellectual of some importance if he was good enough to merit an audience with an "erudite" emperor. Does his name exist in the original text, since it was "presumably the Emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402"? Was the name mentioned in the version produced by Professor Theodore Khoury, which the Pope has read, and which he used in a speech on a critical aspect of a sensitive theme at a time of conflict, on the Islamic doctrine of "holy war"? I ask because names lend greater credibility to text. Was the name omitted because Muslims of the educated kind preferred anonymity? Not at all. Imam Ghazali and Ibn Khaldun were household names at the time of this dialogue.
There are other uncertainties in the Pope's speech, which purports to be about "Faith, Reason and the University: Memories and Reflections" in which he quotes Manuel's ignorant, but, given the history of the early and medieval Church's continual diatribe against Islam and its Prophet, predictable view. This discussion on "holy war" appeared in the seventh conversation and was "rather marginal to the dialogue as a whole" said the Pope. It is interesting that Pope Benedict should select what was "rather marginal" for emphasis and ignore the apparently more substantive issues that were discussed. What is genuinely disconcerting is that the Holy Father should accept Manuel's taunting, erroneous and provocative depiction of the Prophet's message without any qualification. Pope Benedict is not at all disturbed by phrases as insulting as "evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached". This is utterly wrong, as even a cursory understanding of Islam would have made apparent. Are the Pope's speechwriters equally biased or ignorant?
The Pope treated Manuel's observation and commentary as self-evident truth. I have a further question: Why didn't the Pope quote the Persian scholar's answer to Manuel? It was a conversation, after all. Are we to believe that the Persian gave no answer, that he did not challenge such a rant? He could not have been much of a scholar in that case. If he did not reply, he justifies his anonymity.
I am not erudite enough to have read the dialogue in the original Greek, or Professor Khoury's edited version of it. I can only go by the Pope's speech in Germany. Some uncertainties can be explained by the distance of six centuries, as for instance the sentence that the conversation took place "perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara". The fact that we are reading Manuel's record, rather than the Persian's, also explains why it lays more stress on the emperor's view of theology.
What is aggravating is that the Pope has been free with assumptions, and liberal with its first cousin, innuendo. The peaceful piety of Manuel becomes an indictment of Islam, which is held to be violent in preference and doctrine. The innuendo is cleverly expressed, indicating that some effort has been taken to be clever. The famous verse of the Quran, that "There is no compulsion in religion", is juxtaposed with the proposition that "According to the experts, this is one of the Suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat". The implication is that when he was not under threat, he drew out his sword and went on a rampage. This is the kind of propaganda that the Church used to put out with abandon in the early days, adding gratuitously comments about believers and "infidels". But the Vatican had stopped such vilification, and it is unfortunate that Pope Benedict has revived it. If he had consulted a few experts who understood Islam, he might have been better educated on "holy war".
It is absolutely correct that no war verse was sent down to the Prophet during his Mecca phase. Despite the severest persecution, to the point where he almost lost his life, he never advocated violence. There are innumerable verses in the Quran extolling the merits of peace, and a peaceful solution to life's problems -- including a preference for peace over war.
The Quran treats Christians and Jews as people of the Book, despite the fact that they did not accept the Prophet's message. It praises Jesus as "Ruh-Allah", or one touched by the spirit of Allah (this is the best translation I can think of). Mary, mother of Jesus, is accepted as virgin, although the Quran is equally clear that Jesus is a man, and not the son of God. The war verses are sent to the Prophet only when he has been in Medina for some time, and has become not only a leader of the community but also head of a multi-faith state. War, in other words, is permitted as an exercise in statecraft, and not for personal reasons, including persecution. Further, it is circumscribed with important conditions. Surely no one, including Pope Benedict, believes that a state cannot ever take recourse to war? Indeed, the history of the Vatican is filled with war. The Quran's view of war, as an answer to injustice, certainly merits more understanding than censure.
Manuel's view is better understood in the context of his times. He was monarch of a once-glorious but now dying empire. The Ottomans had been slicing off territory for centuries; the first Crusade had been called by Pope Urban II three centuries before to save the Byzantines from Muslim Turks. The heart of the empire, Constantinople, was now under serious threat. If Tamerlane (another Muslim) had not suddenly appeared from the east and decimated the Ottomans, Constantinople might have fallen during that siege which so depressed Manuel. It was hardly a moment when the Byzantines could have the most charitable view of an Islamic holy war. What is less understandable is why Pope Benedict should endorse a fallacy.
The present Pope is not a successor to the great and wise John Paul II. He is heir to predecessors like Pope Nicholas V who issued "The Bull Romanus Pontifex" in January 1455. This Holy Father sought "to bestow favours and special graces on Catholic kings and princes, who ... not only restrain the savage excesses of the Saracens (that is, Muslims) and of other infidels, enemies of the Christian name, but also for the defense and increase of the faith vanquish them..." He then praises King Alfonso for going to remote places "to bring into the bosom of his faith the perfidious enemies of him and of the life-giving Cross by which we have been redeemed, namely the Saracens and other infidels..."
And so on. This was the philosophy that created the Inquisition in which Muslims and Jews were killed and driven out of Catholic kingdoms in Spain and Portugal after the Christian reconquests. Do note that Muslims did not have any exclusive copyright over the use of the term "infidel". I have no particular desire to introduce 16th century dialectic into contemporary attempts to bridge inter-faith misunderstanding, but it is pertinent that Nicholas V became Pope some sixty years after Manuel's conversations with the unnamed Persian. Equally, there is no point in quoting from, say, Dante's rather bilious descriptions of the Prophet and Hazrat Ali for that language belongs to a different world. A suggestion to those who believe in an "international outcry". Hyper-reactions tend to suggest nervousness. Islam is not a weak doctrine; it is built on rock, not sand. Reason is a more effective weapon than anger.
Please e-mail PostGlobal if you'd like to receive an email notification when PostGlobal sends out a new question.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Comments (32)
Please excuse me, but your knowledge of history is a travesty. The Spanish Inquisition was in reaction to the conquest of Southern Spain by Islamic armies. In that conquest we saw the repeat of the barabrism that has accompanied *all* Islamic conquests - theft, rape, murder, and atrocities that defy comprehension. That quote ou keep referring to? It was a plea for sanity and humanity as the Muslem armies swarmed down the Turkish penninsula in the early 1400's. Those armies butchered men, women, and children, wiping out whole populations. To add insult, they took over the Christian churches there..after executing the priests and nuns, usually by impaling them on wooden stakes and savagely torturing them. Thousands of mosques, even today, were Christian churches that were simply taken and converted to mosques after the church leaders were murdered. Today, under Islamic "law" (and I use that term loosely...it's an excuse for bigotry) a non-Muslem cannot speak publically about their faith, they cannot build a new church, they cannot even hold citizenship, and they have to pay a special tax. What do you suppose would happen if we, in the West, imposed the same sorts of restrictions on your nausiating and barabric claptrap of a religion as you do on non-Muslems? Islam? Some religion of peace and tolerance! I'll tell you what I want. I want an apology for the murder, the rape and pillage, for the theft of our churches, for the wanton destruction of others, and for the barabric way in which Muslems treat others. Your history is one of lies and deceit, beginning with that con man you call a prophet (MHRH - may he rot in hell).
September 19, 2006 4:36 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 19, 2006 16:36
You and your Muslim brethren need do only one thing to prove the Pope wrong: condemn all violence (yes, even to Jews) in the name of Islam. We have yet to hear "the peace-loving, Muslim majority" utter such a condemnation. And we know you will not because you know what we all know: you will be in the crosshairs next if you do. You will become a victim of this madness you defend.
You can pick at every cartoon, academic discussion or what ever about Islam; all you have to do is condemn, oh my, even the violence done to other Muslims in the name of Allah and your glorious Prophet. All of your self-pity and whining about how poorly the West has treated you is a bunch of hooey. It's Muslims who are killing Muslims (in Iraq and Afghanistan); it's Muslims who are killing Catholics and other Christians (in Somalia, Turkey, etc); it's Muslims who are killing anyone who gets in their jihadist way; it's Muslims who are the oppressive dictators slaughtering and imprisoning fellow-Muslims, and depriving Muslims of freedom, prosperity and integration into the world community.
No, you and other Islamic spokesmen have become cowards just like the jihadists who hide behind their women and children (like Hizbollah), who cannot come out into the light of day, who strap bombs to their children (the Pope doesn't do that to your children!).
But mark my words, one day you will have to make a decision; you will not be able to straddle the fence. And it won't be the West that forces the decision; it will be your crazed brothers who will make you choose, just as they hope to do with everyone in all nations; just as Muslims have always done: convert or die.
Come one, I dare you; Prove me wrong!
September 19, 2006 8:00 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 19, 2006 20:00
Mr. Akbar,
You miss the point: It is not the nuances of the Pope's message or its context. The point is the reaction to his message was MORE VIOLENCE BY MUSLIMS. A LOT OF VIOLENCE INCLUDING MURDER!! Whether the Koran condones it also misses the point. Millions of Muslims hate the rest of the world! Islam's religious leaders are responsible for teaching hatred to their followers which results in murderous outrages around the world. Don't you think this situation required someone to speak out? If anything, the Pope should have been more direct.
September 19, 2006 9:39 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 19, 2006 21:39
John Paul II had the mission to fight the Soviet Union, the "Evil Empire" - to express it in the language of the late US president Ronald Regan - and the communist idealogy. Since the fall of the USSR, the West has been busy construction a hate figure which can function as a scapegoat for ills of the "civilized" West. In the post Cold War era this has been the Islamic civilization which has "bloody borders". John Paul II's mission was accomplished: the "Evil Empire" crumbled like Jericho Walls. His successor Benedict XVI, or Razi to express it in the language of the British newspaper "the Sun", seems to have been sent on a similar mission to do the same with "Islamo-fascists" ideology. In spite of the asymmetric power structure between the Judo-Christian West and Islamic cinvilization, he stands a slim chance of seeing his mission materialized.
September 19, 2006 10:15 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 19, 2006 22:15
Mr. Akbar,
Muhammad's evil sons have raped, forced to conversion in Persia, Afghanistan, Pakistan and other parts of India. If you can go back to the past, you will find your family was Hindu and they were the victims of these evil rapists. You know the story of Somnath temple, Ram temple (later babri mosque) and thousands of temples in India was dazed and mosque built to declare five times loudly "no God but Allah". If you believe in that verse of Koran, you can not tolerate other religion/God. Why only Pope? Where are the Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists to condemn this barbaric ideology? Your comment "Reason is a more effective weapon than anger"--tell it to fanatic, angry Muslims. Save the world, save humanity, convert all Muslims to other believes.
September 20, 2006 3:37 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 20, 2006 03:37
The Pope used "I Quote" explicitly, so we can safely assume those are not his words. The whole thing about if he belives or not, and your article are as you said "full of loose assumptions and inunendo".
I am not sure how many times did "Grand Ayothollahs" or "Grand Imams" have apologised for publicly calling for "JIHAD" and decimation of "INFIDELS".
All these demands of apology are like "Devil teaching the Gospel".
Nice try Pal.
September 20, 2006 9:42 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 20, 2006 09:42
If you want to know who is violent, just ask the Orthodox about the Catholics...and let us all remember that John Paul II formally apologized to the Orthodox on behalf of the Catholics for acts of more than 500 years ago.
September 20, 2006 10:08 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 20, 2006 10:08
Mr. Akbar:
You seem to say, "Hey you have committed mass murders, forced conversions and genocides; so what is wrong if Muslims did the same?" Of all the people, as some one coming from India, you should know it better. You know it fully well that from 10th century on, Muslim invaders conducted countless acts of aggression in India, slaughtered millions of Hindus, demolished every temple and Hindu centers of learning in northern India. And all in the name of Islam! Those who accepted Islam (that includes your ancestors) were spared, others were put to sword. These are not my words, but facts fully documented by Muslim court historians and Muslim classics including Tawarikh-e-hind, Padshah Namas, Babar Nama and countless accounts left behind by the court historians of Tughlaks, Khilzis and Moghals. There is no "official figure" but judging from their accounts, at least 200 million Hindus were slaughtered by Islamic invaders/rulers from 10th through 18th century. The kindest Muslims allowed Hindus to live, provided they pay Jijiya tax, a whopping 75% of the produce.
Do you deny the fact that most of Muslims in today's Kashmir are children of Hindus who were forced to accept Islam? Remember why Sikh Guru Tegh Bahadur was tortured and murdered and the events that lead to the birth of Khalsa (Followers of Sikh Guru Govind Singh)! The former was given an option, accept Islam, which he refused. The result was brutal torture and shameless beheading in accordance with the dictates of Koran. Yes, dictates of Koran --- I think it is Sura ix, 4th or 5th verse that categorically stated "kill the polytheists where ever you find them."
It is also a fact, Islam wiped out the entire Persian civilization; killed or forced ancient Persians to covert to ISLAM. only a handful managed to escape to India where they live today as Parsis. And what about ancient Gandhar (Afghanistan) populated by Hindus and Buddhists. What happened to them? Today, only a dozen Hindu families are left there and absolutely no Buddhist. Do you deny the fact that the grand statues of Buddha at Bamiyan were demolished (a few years ago) only because the Taliban and Muslim scholars believed that the presence of idols on Islamic lands is un-Islamic?
September 20, 2006 12:03 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 20, 2006 12:03
I just read several books about relations among religions in Moorish Spain, and none of them came remotely close to the picture the last poster attempted to paint.
September 20, 2006 12:43 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 20, 2006 12:43
Nothing will be solved unless we all stay away from recriminations and the Muslim communities are made to understand that rage and violence over real or perceived grievances are wrong.
The Pope had no need for the inflamatory quote in order to make his case on the subject of Reason. As well, he should have been aware of the reaction expected from the extremist Islamic religious leaders ready to incite the mobs.
One good thing came from that reaction. Perhaps we can put our own differences away and deal with the real threat: The terrorism evolved into a global menace and the more frequent show of sympathy and support which the Muslim communities are not affraid nor embarassed to exhibit.
And that change in attitude, frankly, may have an explanation, certainly not an excuse, in the misguided "War on terror" and the escalation of it to the newest aberration: The so called clash of civilizations.
That is precisely why I believe that the Pope ought to have kept his peace.
September 20, 2006 3:02 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 20, 2006 15:02
Meandering, stream-of-consciousness. Not all that readable either, I've seen better; especially the ending was hurried, and I was left hunting for a point to the whole thing. Who cares what the Persian's name was ?
September 20, 2006 3:36 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 20, 2006 15:36
Akbar says
"1.0 It is absolutely correct that no war verse was sent down to the Prophet during his Mecca phase. Despite the severest persecution, to the point where he almost lost his life, he never advocated violence. There are innumerable verses in the Quran extolling the merits of peace, and a peaceful solution to life's problems -- including a preference for peace over war.
2.0 The war verses are sent to the Prophet only when he has been in Medina for some time, and has become not only a leader of the community but also head of a multi-faith state. War, in other words, is permitted as an exercise in statecraft, and not for personal reasons, including persecution. Further, it is circumscribed with important conditions. Surely no one, including Pope Benedict, believes that a state cannot ever take recourse to war? Indeed, the history of the Vatican is filled with war. The Quran's view of war, as an answer to injustice, certainly merits more understanding than censure.
3.0 Islam is not a weak doctrine; it is built on rock, not sand. Reason is a more effective weapon than anger"
1.0 So you agree there are no war verses in koran while Mohammad was in Mecca. He was weak when he in mecca. A war verse would have brought death to Mohammad. It is very convenient to receive no war verses.
2.0 In Medina he received war verses as he needed to conquer territories. It is very convenient for him to receive them also. Otherwise he couldn't win wars. You say in Medina he ruled a state. So he had to go to war. All kings in those days went to war. But they didn't go and destroy their places of worship and force them into the conquerers faith. Besides true Prophets don't wage wars, don't kill people, don't take cocubines, don't marry nine wives, don't force to covert to their faith, don't become rulers.
Mohammad not only went to war. He looted, killed, converted by force or made those who did want to convert into dhimmis, those who didn't want to accept Islam or dhimmitude, he killed them.
No true prophet will do these barborous things.
3.0 Islam is not built on rocks. It is built on blood and loot.
Today we in the west have the power to annihilate the entire muslim world. You have no pwer compared to us. May be you will force us to do what we don't want to do. We can kill all of you and send you to heaven at once.
Then onlt there will be peace on earth. Where do you live? In an Islamic country I hope. You don't belong in a democratic country like ours, the unted states of America.
September 20, 2006 9:25 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 20, 2006 21:25
Pope is right!! Muslims continue the tenets of jihad and kill the infidels in modern times. The problem is the Muslims have not entered modernity. The Pope meant this in his remarks.
The U.S. must disengage from this area. This area only offers as export oil and nothing else of value. The Islamics are contentious among themselves. WE do not need to send our finest to be killed and wounded like sitting ducks. Bush has no sense of history in this area. As far as he and apostles can go back is to Hitler. No depth whatsoever.
September 21, 2006 3:25 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 21, 2006 03:25
(from the Quran:)
The Dinner Table
[5.51] O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for
friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them
for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the
unjust people.
The Immunity
[9.30] And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say:
The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they
imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them;
how they are turned away!
The Cow
[2.89] [...] so Allah's curse is on the unbelievers.
[2.90] so they have made themselves deserving of wrath upon wrath, and there
is a disgraceful punishment for the unbelievers.
[2.98] so surely Allah is the enemy of the unbelievers.
[2.104] and for the unbelievers there is a painful chastisement
[2.191] And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence
they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not
fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if
they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the
unbelievers.
The Family of Imran
[3.131] And guard yourselves against the fire which has been prepared for
the unbelievers
The Women
[4.37] and We have prepared for the unbelievers a disgraceful chastisement.
[4.101] surely the unbelievers are your open enemy.
[4.140] surely Allah will gather together the hypocrites and the unbelievers
all in hell.
The Accessions
[8.7] Allah desired to manifest the truth of what was true by His words and
to cut off the root of the unbelievers.
[8.14] This-- taste it, and (know) that for the unbelievers is the
chastisement of fire.
[8.18] This, and that Allah is the weakener of the struggle of the
unbelievers.
The Immunity
[9.2] Allah will bring disgrace to the unbelievers.
[9.49] Surely into trial have they already tumbled down, and most surely
hell encompasses the unbelievers
[9.68] Allah has promised the hypocritical men and the hypocritical women
and the unbelievers the fire of hell to abide therein; it is enough for
them; and Allah has cursed them and they shall have lasting punishment.
[9.73] O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and
be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination.
[9.123] O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to
you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who
guard
The Thunder
[13.35] and the requital of the unbelievers is the fire.
Abraham
[14.2] and woe to the unbelievers on account of the severe chastisement
The Bee
[16.27] Surely the disgrace and the evil are this day upon the unbelievers
The Children of Israel
[17.8] and We have made hell a prison for the unbelievers.
The Cave
[18.100] And We will bring forth hell, exposed to view, on that day before
the unbelievers.
[18.102] Surely We have prepared hell for the entertainment of the
unbelievers.
Marium
[19.83] Do you not see that We have sent the Shaitans against the
unbelievers, inciting them by incitement?
The Spider
[29.54] They ask you to hasten on the chastisement, and most surely hell
encompasses the unbelievers;
[29.68] Will not in hell be the abode of the unbelievers?
The Clans
[33.8] and He has prepared for the unbelievers a painful punishment.
[33.25] And Allah turned back the unbelievers in their rage; they did not
obtain any advantage, and Allah sufficed the believers in fighting; and
Allah is Strong, Mighty.
[33.64] Surely Allah has cursed the unbelievers and has prepared for them a
burning fire,
The Companions
[39.32] is there not in hell an abode for the unbelievers?
[39.71] And those who disbelieve shall be driven to hell in companies;
The Council
[42.26] and (as for) the unbelievers, they shall have a severe punishment.
The Victory
[48.13] And whoever does not believe in Allah and His Apostle, then surely
We have prepared burning fire for the unbelievers.
She Who Pleaded
[58.4] and the unbelievers shall have a painful punishment.
[58.5] and the unbelievers shall have an abasing chastisement.
The Prohibition
[66.9] O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites,
and be hard against them; and their abode is hell; and evil is the resort.
The Kingdom
[67.28] yet who will protect the unbelievers from a painful punishment?
Time
[76.4] Surely We have prepared for the unbelievers chains and shackles and a
burning fire.
He Frowned
[80.42] These are they who are unbelievers, the wicked.
September 21, 2006 6:43 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 21, 2006 06:43
Akbar is a Muslim and he is the worst kind. He is a tiger sheeps clothes. He shed his sheeps clothes when he wrote this. He should be stripped from his job and send him to Pakistan where he belongs. He doesn't belong in India. He is a traitor to India and it's secular priciples.
September 21, 2006 8:42 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 21, 2006 08:42
Things would be a lot better, if people followed these words from Jesus:
Matthew 7
1 "Don't judge, so that you won't be judged.
2 For with whatever judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with whatever measure you measure, it will be measured to you.
3 Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but don't consider the beam that is in your own eye?
4 Or how will you tell your brother,'Let me remove the speck from your eye;' and behold, the beam is in your own eye?
5 You hypocrite! First remove the beam out of your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother's eye.
That goes for everyone... Jews, Christians and Muslims. Americans, Europeans, Arabs, etc. Take care of your own problems instead of wasting your time railing about the shortcomings of others.
September 21, 2006 8:46 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 21, 2006 08:46
Jesus, Buddha, Cofucious, Zoaraster were real saints.
Mohammad stands alone as a false prophet who acted more like Attilla the Hun, Gengis khan, tammerland, Stalin and Hitler.
Jesus was good Mohammad was evil. Mhammad was antichrist. Muslim mind is intoxicated with faith in Allah and Mohammad. Muslim can't see the truth.
A fight against Islam is a fight against evil. Every Christian and Jew must participate in it and wipe the Islam out.
September 21, 2006 9:15 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 21, 2006 09:15
just soothing lies. but thanks to the internet, it's easy to find correct info.
http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=24506
September 21, 2006 11:37 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 21, 2006 11:37
Pak, You sound like another hindu fanatic.
September 21, 2006 11:58 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 21, 2006 11:58
The following will confirms that Mohammad was a false prophet. This is from a book and is considered a scholarly work.
M. J. Akbar writes "Islam is not a weak doctrine; it is built on rock, not sand. Reason is a more effective weapon than anger."
The following confirms that Mohammad was a false prophet. This is from a book and is considered a scholarly work.
"One day the prophet set out to visit his adopted son Zaid. Zaid had been one of the earliest converts to Islam,the third in fact. he was very layal to his adopted father.,who in turn held him in high regard. Zaid was married to Zaynab bint Jahsh, a cousin of the prophet. By all accounts was very beatiful. On the day concerned, Zaid was not home., but Zaynab, rather lightly clad, and hence revealing great many of her charms, opened the door to the prophet, and asked him in. as she hastily prepared to receive him, muhammad was smitten by he beauty:"gracious lord! good heavens!how do you turn the hearts of men" exclaimed the prophet. He declined to enter and went away in some confusion.However Zanayb heard his words and repeated him to Zaid, when he returned home. Zaid went to straight to the prophet and dutifully offered to di vorce his wife for him. Mohammad declined, adding, "keep your wife and fear God." Zanayb now seemed quite taken with the idea of marrying the prophet and Zaid seeing Mohammad still yearned for her, divorced her.Still fear of public opinion made Mohammad to hesitate: after all, an adopted son was in every respect equal to a natural son; therefore such a union would have been seen as incestuous by the Arabs of his time. As always, a revelation came to him in time, enabling him to "cast his scruple to the wind." While Muhammad was sitting next to his wife Aisha, he suddenly went into one of his prophetic swoons. When he had recovered, he said, "Who will go and congradulate Zanayb and say the Lord has joined her to me in marriage?" Thus we find in sura 33.2-33.7: Aisha his wife remarked "truly your god seems to have been very quick in fulfilling your prayers.""
September 22, 2006 8:52 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 22, 2006 08:52
The irony of this discussion is overwhelming. In a controversial debate over whether the pope should have said what he said, and whether the Muslim response were reasonable or warranted, many are quick to note that both the violence and the militant tone of much of the Muslim response to the pope's comments (or if you prefer, quotes) about Islam's violent nature seems, ironically, to prove his point.
Enter Mr. Akbar, responding to the pope's address in just the manner that many Westerners wish Muslims would--calm, rational and conversational. And what is the response to his column, particularly his concluding statement that reason is more effective than anger? Unvarnished anger and vitriol directed toward him personally and Islam in general.
Its a good thing we here in the West are so much more open-minded, not to mention respectful of free speech and tolerant of differences of opinion; I just dont understand why more Muslims cant take our earnest desire to understand their culture and enter into a genuine two-way dialogue at face value and respond to ad hominem attacks rather than just react...
September 22, 2006 2:41 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 22, 2006 14:41
Rolf-Peter Wille:
Permit me to add one more. It is from:
Sura IX, Verse 5:
"After the holy month is over, kill the non-believers where ever you find them ...."
September 22, 2006 3:25 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 22, 2006 15:25
The irony of violent muslim reaction to what the Pope said - will obviously escape Muslims.
Regardless of whether the Pope was right in saying what he did - the fact that muslims reacted like savage beasts - as they always seem to do - proved that dialogue with islam and muslims is not p-ossible. Since it is not practical to wage a war of anhilation against the islamists - a practical solution is to stop muslims from living in Western countries or travelling to Western countries. We should strip all of the muslims living in America and Canada of their "citizenship of convenience" and send them to their islamic heaven - where they can live under sharia - have 4 wives, stone adultering women to death, stop sending girls to school and force them to wear a hijab.
This way they could live happily in their dar-ul-islam and we could live in peace . By god we don't want this "religion of peace" in the West .
They can stew in their own oil.
September 23, 2006 1:25 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 23, 2006 13:25
MUSLIM LOVE prophat &will not tolerat insults from secularist.Hover,look @the history,who occupied IRAQ,afghanistan,palastineTHE third hollyest place for MUSLIM.who orderd cruside .what did eueopian do to the RED INDIAN,AND WHERE ARE THEY NOW,IN A ZOO.who droped A BOMB in Japan?who was HITLAR a christan.SOUTH AMERICAN were focefully covertaed,who were KLU KLX KLAN,a christan terorist,has any one been punished for their evil deed yet? a.j.
September 24, 2006 11:57 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 24, 2006 11:57
"Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled and incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of other countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in evry country in the world. But tohse who study Islamic holy war will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world. Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam councles against war. Those who say this are witless. Islam says: kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by the unbelievers? Islam say: kill them [non Muslims], put them to the sword and scatter [ their armies]. Does this mean sitting back until [nonMuslims] overcome us? Islam says kill in the service of Allah those who may want to kill you! Does this mean we have to surrender to the enemy! Isla says: Whatever there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People can't be made obedient except with sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can b opened only for holy warriors! There are hundreds of other [Koranic] psalms and Hadiths {sayings of the Prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all that mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit on those foolish souls who make such a claim."
Komeini was supreme leader of Shia Islam. Certaily he knows Islam. He was quoting fron Koran. So non Muslims must not trust a Muslim unless he/she renounces Islam. Akbar
You ought to know the above spoken by Khomeini of Iran in answer to people who claim Islam is a peaceful religion. He was answering critis of Fatwa issued by Komeini on Salman Rushdie. You write Islam is built on Rock and it is not a weak doctrine. Yes Islam is a strong doctrine and it is built by violent and inhuman methods, Pope is right and he ought to be supported by all those who want peace. Islam should be fought and eliminated from this earth. As long as there is Islam there will be no peace.
September 24, 2006 1:32 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 24, 2006 13:32
This is shocking to say at Least. Picking up texts out of context to portray Islam as a violent religion. Every single of those verses are sent down as a result of some historical event. For example , slay them wherever you find verse. That verse was send when Muslims were being killed even after signing peace treaty. I would add verses before and after that verse to show how it was taken out of context.
Chapter 9 Verse 4 to 7:
=========================================
But the treaties are) not dissolved with those Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. So fulfil your engagements with them to the end of their term: for Allah loveth the righteous.
But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge.
How can there be a league, before Allah and His Messenger, with the Pagans, except those with whom ye made a treaty near the sacred Mosque? As long as these stand true to you, stand ye true to them: for Allah doth love the righteous.
=========================================
I am pretty sure Jesus Christ and Moses ( peace be upon them) would be shocked at the language used here to spread lies about a religion which shares teachings of them. May God bless you all.
September 26, 2006 12:26 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 26, 2006 12:26
Bottom line here is this: The Pope does not condone death: be it terrorism, abortion, or the death penalty. The Archbishop of Canterbury? Same deal. Orthodox Patriarchs? Again, non-violent, even in the face of brutal Stalinist oppression. Episcopalians, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians? No violence here. Want to address the Crusades? Christians have already condemned our half of the violence. We screwed up and we'll be the first to say so. But where is the Muslim regret for their half? Where is the Reform? Where is the Repentance? The fact is that the Christians quit crusading hundreds of years ago. But Islam is still fighting their crusades...
September 26, 2006 3:03 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 26, 2006 15:03
Having read MJAkbars and readers reactions,its concluded
- Muslims not ready to hear any historic comments,instead can burn properties and even can kill person who has never uttered a word against Islam.
-Cristian not ready to hear even to their holiest person The Pope who says that he respects Islam,and its not his own views when he refered those in his lecture,rather he apologised for his reference he mentioned in his lecture.
- Why Cristians do not follow the Pope and respect Islam,instead of writing irrelevant quotations ( out of context ) from the holy Quran to ignite the sentiments of Muslims.or let the Pope tell the Cristians all about the real Islam,so that Islamic picture is clearly viewed by every body to hate or love the Islam.
September 27, 2006 6:31 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2006 06:31
I have read the opinions of "the civilised west" and some other "modern people" on this page. How can you feel so threatened by one man who preached nothing but Peace always. Learn more about Islam before venting on line. The comments posted against Islam and the Holy Prophet PEACE BE UPON HIM tell me that that even though history has recorded everything about Prophet Mohammed PEACE AND BLESSINGS BE UPON HIM people seem to ignore History altogether and time and time again exemplify their ignorance of Islam and the Prophet. So much hatred for one man and one race? seems to me you people are afraid that this religion is spreading without any bribery on its merits alone!The Pope started another controversy by quoting a Persian known only to his speech writers. He is a holy man and should not make inflammatory speeches, which then result in bringing every bigot out of the woodwork to air their ignorant opinions on a beautiful religion that is misunderstood totally.
September 27, 2006 6:45 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2006 06:45
Muslim:
Unfortunately you are ignorant of Islam, Koran and the Prophet. If you know the truth you will renounce Islam, any honest good person will do the same.
The Prophet was preaching peace in Mecca when he ha few followers. His life was at the mercy of Meccans. So wrote peaceful verses and claimed they were received from Allah. You probabely only familiar with Meccan verses.
After he went Medina he had many follwers and he became their leader. He had power over them. No one could harm him. He could harm others at his will. Then he wrote war verses and claimed he received them from Allah.
In Medina his and his follwers didn't work to make a living. They just looted other peoples property, killed them and lived on the loot.
After he captured Mecca, he ordered his muslim army to invade other countries. He invited those people to convert to Islam after looting them. If they refused he ordered them to become Dhimmis. If they refused to convert and accept to live as Dhimmis, he killed them. That was how Islam spread.
Emperor Akbar of India did away with all that and respected all religions. He was the exception. In India three thousand hindu temples were destroyed, including Krishna temple in Madura, Rama temple in Ayodhya, Somanath Temple in Gujarat, and Shiva temple in Varanasi. Rama, krishna and Shiva were worshiped by the people all over India including the people of that area. People of the those teple area were murdered, raped and forced to convert to Islam. The decendents of those people created Pakistan. The leaders of Pakistan claim decent from Mohammad. They treat the natives as dirt. Musharruf, A Q Khan and many aristocrats don't care for the people they rule. They think they Arabs. Suicide bombers are decendents of converted Muslims. They became servants of Arab imperoalism. Islam is Arab imperialism. Islam is like opium. There is no freedom in Islam. Islam is not growing. Many Muslims who want to leave Islam are ofraid of their lives to declare so. You are in aprison of Islam. You can't leave it if you want to.
September 27, 2006 10:03 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 27, 2006 10:03
Let me put it in simple words
Islam is the only religion in world which teaches to use yr sword for converting the faith of someone.
No other religion say you should use force to change anybodies faith.
This is a fundamental flaw in Islams philopshy.
On a lighter note though:)
All religions path leads to god, where as Islams path leads away from God.
September 28, 2006 2:09 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 28, 2006 02:09
Byzantine emperor was correct. Mohammad was evil, Allah is Devil, Koran is an unholy book.
Proof: According to Islam it is Blasphamy
1) to leave Islam
2) to cricise the prophet
3) to criticise koran
4) to criticise Allah
No religion is like this. It can't be classified as a religion.
September 30, 2006 4:37 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on September 30, 2006 04:37