Wahhabism is a very small sect of Islam, but it has been well funded by the Saudi princes. As regarding their motives, they take it as an imperative that all the world should be part of the empire of islam.
The Pope and Muslims
- Thread starter MJB
- Start date
Mama Bear said:
Not according to Fox News.....
Over the years I have had many a conversation with someone who holds the principles of Islam to their breast. In each case, I started with the simple basic tenants of polietness and courtesy and was able to yield an enriching and educational dialogue with that person. I am not a preacher, a crusader, or someone going out to convert the masses. Rather I see myself much like the large majority of people who hold whatever faith they were raised upon in conjunction with whatever morals and lessons or choices picked up over the course of their life.
By going into a conversation with some basic knowledge, however flawed or unclear to me, I was able to raise questions and demonstate it was seen as learning and not an insult. In return, questions were asked about me and my faith to which I returned with the same tact and polietness.
I guess the rambling point of all this is that basic good 'ol "treat others as you'd like them to treat you" has done me nothing but a world of good to date.
Wish there was a way to give everyone in the world, from the most laid back person of whatever creed to the most militant, a coupon so they could try this basic idea out.
I don't know whether anyone really knows how many adhere to Qutbism. I think many Muslim's can sympathize with his views even if they aren't active followers. Many would stop short of taking up the sword, and I suppose you could call these peaceful. A point to be made, though, is that Muhammed himself advocated forced conversion and military expansion, so it is an aspect of the religion which cannot be ascribed to only fringe groups. I guess a claim could be made that those who stop short of taking up the sword are not faithful followers of Islam. That debate is internal to Islam, and can perhaps be most clearly seen in Turkey, where the political aspect is legally seperated from the religious aspect of Islam, due to the legacy of Ataturk, the founder of modern Turkey. In short, Qutb's position can be reconciled to traditional Islam.Mama Bear said:
By contrast, the Spanish Inquisition cannot be reconciled to traditional Christianity as espoused by Christ. As for the crusades, perhaps an oft neglected aspect should be mentioned - the crusades were a reaction to military expansion of the muslim caliphate. This does not condone the actions of some of the crusaders, many of whom were opportunists rather than christian zealots. However, the crusaders are often portrayed as the agressors, when in actuality they were responding to the very policies of forced conversion and military expansion of the muslim empire which Qutb and his radical followers seek to reinstate. At the time of the crusades, the muslims were destroying christian churches in asia minor and visiting violence on christian pilgrims in the holy land, in violation of long-standing agreements to allow safe passage. The crusades sought to check the destruction of christian communities in Asia Minor.
Its a pity that we so seldom hear or understand the whole story in our pop-culture, sound-bite world. Perhaps the "whole story" is beyond what anyone can really grasp, but even those pertinent tidbits I've given above, which are not anywhere close to the whole story, will come as revelation to many and might possibly shed light and understanding on what has been going on in the modern world. I think its a shame that this is stuff the average well-educated, literate American doesn't have a clue about.
kozulich said:
Amen to that. I think it rather a shame that after twenty long years of education, I really don't have the background to really understand most of what is behind most cultural conflicts.....
These guys were so upset at what the Pope had to say they respond with:
From: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/world/4194921.html
The group said Muslims would be victorious and addressed the pope as "the worshipper of the cross" saying "you and the West are doomed as you can see from the defeat in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya and elsewhere. ... We will break up the cross, spill the liquor and impose head tax, then the only thing acceptable is a conversion (to Islam) or (killed by) the sword."
Wow! Way to prove that silly Pope how wrong he was. You guys rule!
From: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/world/4194921.html
The group said Muslims would be victorious and addressed the pope as "the worshipper of the cross" saying "you and the West are doomed as you can see from the defeat in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya and elsewhere. ... We will break up the cross, spill the liquor and impose head tax, then the only thing acceptable is a conversion (to Islam) or (killed by) the sword."
Wow! Way to prove that silly Pope how wrong he was. You guys rule!
I particularly like this quote from the article:ada8356 said:
Reminds of that cliche "Its one thing to have people think of you as stupid (violent) its quite another to open your mouth (throw your fire bomb) and prove it"
I just don't get it! These guys are so upset at being calling violent that they are saying the Pope and the West are doomed and are burning effigies of the Pope at protests... We are all going to die by the sword, they say. Even China is saying they have been insulted!
Do they want to be called violent, or not!
http://www.nbc5.com/news/9874577/de...l=chi_12pm&tmi=chi_12pm_1_12150209182006&ts=H
Do they want to be called violent, or not!
http://www.nbc5.com/news/9874577/de...l=chi_12pm&tmi=chi_12pm_1_12150209182006&ts=H
It seems as if 2 expanding forces have finally met. The western civilzation and the middle eastern civilization. I personally don't understand why the Pope felt the need to make any statement about the Islamic faith at all. I consider myself to be a lot like Forrest Gump in these matters. I walk around aware that bad stuff is happening but I don't really know the reasons why?
The question that I have pondered over the weekend is this. What if there was a terrorist attack on the Vatican on the level of all the other large attacks that have occured in the past 5 years? What would be the world's response? These would then be scary times for sure.
The question that I have pondered over the weekend is this. What if there was a terrorist attack on the Vatican on the level of all the other large attacks that have occured in the past 5 years? What would be the world's response? These would then be scary times for sure.
This is all very interesting.. But, is it a war of cultures, or another excuse for demigogues to muster the masses to acts of violence?
guenron said:
Is there a difference?
Tito said:
I still haven't read the entire transcript but it would seem that the Pope was engaged in a very academic lecture/discussion and his comments have been taken out of context. I seriously doubt that he thought so much press would be given to his talk... it was probably a slow news day in the world, so some 'responsible' journalist saw an opportunity to cherry-pick his comments into a 'huge story'.
Based on my cursory read of the transcript, the Pope was talking about whether it is either possible or preferable to separate reason from faith. I guess that he either did a poor job of getting his point across, or someone was just looking for an excuse for another round of Jihad.ada8356 said:I still haven't read the entire transcript but it would seem that the Pope was engaged in a very academic lecture/discussion and his comments have been taken out of context. I seriously doubt that he thought so much press would be given to his talk... it was probably a slow news day in the world, so some 'responsible' journalist saw an opportunity to cherry-pick his comments into a 'huge story'.
Mama Bear said:
Well I'll try to add to the previous posts.
A big reason that violence is very much accepted for many Muslims is the Koran. There are many verses which outright advocate violence. The most famous (what is called the sword verse) is Sura 9:5
The quote is, unfortunately, one of many in a similar vein. The problem is that it is very easy to take this verse literally because of Islamic history. Muhammed himself was a military leader. He fought battles, and the initial area which came under his political control was won by the sword.
Also I think (though I could be wrong, so please correct me if I am) that it is Islamic belief that Muhammed received the words for the Koran by Allah through the angel Gabriel, and that the Koran, by orthodox Islamic beliefs, should be taken as the literal word of God
Yesterday I heard an interview with the President of the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy. In the interview he came right out and denounced the violence and calls for the death of the Pope.
He also stated in no uncertain terms that bin Laden and the other terrorists were not true Muslims or true believers and that they perverted the Muslim faith by misinterpreting verses of the Qur'an.
He also said that mainstream Muslims denounce the acts of terrorists every day but they don't receive any press in the Western media. Perhaps there is a grain of truth in that, I don't know.
It was quite refreshing to hear a highly respected Muslim leader speak out against the violence committed in the name of Islam. Perhaps there are more Muslims of like mind than we are aware?
He also stated in no uncertain terms that bin Laden and the other terrorists were not true Muslims or true believers and that they perverted the Muslim faith by misinterpreting verses of the Qur'an.
He also said that mainstream Muslims denounce the acts of terrorists every day but they don't receive any press in the Western media. Perhaps there is a grain of truth in that, I don't know.
It was quite refreshing to hear a highly respected Muslim leader speak out against the violence committed in the name of Islam. Perhaps there are more Muslims of like mind than we are aware?
MasonM said:
I would find that easy to believe. It probably doens't make for as good a news story. Sounds bites from extremists make for better stories...
Yes, that is accurate from what I've heard and read. As an interesting aside, for those who are inclined towards the spiritual, at first when Muhammed was "visited" by the "angel Gabriel" he thought he was being visited by a demon. The visits were very violent and terrible in nature. Mohammed even considered commiting suicide, he was so terrified. Only after he was convinced by family and friends that the visits must be from Allah and that Muhammed must therefore be a prophet did he take them as a divine revelation. Perhaps Muhammed's first intuition was correct? Certainly from a Christian standpoint we know that Satan is said to masquerade as an "angel of light".19george said:
Returning to the actual message from the lecture, I haven't read the entire translation of the speach but I have read the surrounding paragraphs of the now infamous quotation. What is interesting to me is that several lines before he quoted the medival writer, the Pope had quoted the one line of the Quran as saying something along the lines of "No conversion can come via force" (my paraphrase - I forget the exact wording). He then delves into the medival quote where the western writer essentially states that Islam tries to convert by the sword (the infamous quotation). He then converses about how forced conversions by bloodshed are against the nature of God. And here it is at least somewhat useful to state that the Gods of Judiasm, Christianity, and Islam all are technically the same God, well in that they are all evolved from the same initial God figure but have since evolved into three distinctly seperate God entities; though through that common origion one can easily make the arguement that there are many commonalities between the three God figures.
In essence the media has done a wonderful job of quoting one isolated portion of a much larger treatise that has no context and many people are commenting on his speach without looking and understanding the full meaning behind his message. It is little different than if I were giving a message on say animal rights (just random topic) and I quoted as part of my lecture a book that was discussing the joys of mercilessly beating animals as evidence of the opposing opinion and the media only said that I had used that quote within my speach and said nothing about the surrounding commentary. In that case I would come off as an animal hater who got my thrills beating animals, not true but that is how it would appear. That is the essence of what has happened with the Pope's lecture.
In essence the media has done a wonderful job of quoting one isolated portion of a much larger treatise that has no context and many people are commenting on his speach without looking and understanding the full meaning behind his message. It is little different than if I were giving a message on say animal rights (just random topic) and I quoted as part of my lecture a book that was discussing the joys of mercilessly beating animals as evidence of the opposing opinion and the media only said that I had used that quote within my speach and said nothing about the surrounding commentary. In that case I would come off as an animal hater who got my thrills beating animals, not true but that is how it would appear. That is the essence of what has happened with the Pope's lecture.
fuerein said:
So who bears reponsibility for what we have now?
1) Unethical Journalist(s)?
2) People who look for reasons to get mad?
3) The Pope?
4) News orgs that just ran with the story?
At the end of the day I would blame #4 for not clarifying the actual events around the (non) story. It's like they have no accountability.
Yeah, basically the words ascribed to the pope were not his but someone else's (a byzantine emperor I think), but they were incorrectly ascribed to the pope because he quoted them in his speech. Now he is being flogged for not apologizing for the words of a byzantine emperor (as if he could do that).fuerein said:
ada8356 said:
If you blame #4 you have to at least partially include #1 if only for the simple fact that no journalist (at none I have seen) have yet to even give the broad context of the message in the articles they have penned. The most context I have recieved from a news article is something along the lines of "the Pope, speaking on religions, ..."
