Turkish official compares pope to Hitler
Politician joins outcry across Muslim world over pontiff's comments in Islam
The Associated Press


Updated: 10:54 a.m. ET Sept. 15, 2006
ANKARA, Turkey - Turkey’s ruling Islamic-rooted party joined a wave of criticism of Pope Benedict XVI on Friday, accusing him of trying to revive the spirit of the Crusades with remarks he made about the Muslim faith.

Muslim leaders elsewhere in the world also expressed dismay, with Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry summoning the Vatican’s ambassador to express regret over the remarks, and Parliament passing a resolution condemning the comments.

The pope’s words were “deeply disturbing for Muslims all over the world, and had caused great hurt and anguish,” the ministry said in a statement.

The Vatican’s envoy “regretted the hurt caused to Muslims and said that the media had totally misconstrued certain historical quotes that the Pope used in his lecture,” the statement said.

Benedict quoted from a book recounting a conversation between 14th century Byzantine Christian Emperor Manuel Paleologos II and a Persian scholar on the truths of Christianity and Islam.

“The emperor comes to speak about the issue of jihad, holy war,” the pope said. “He said, I quote, ’Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”’

Benedict did not explicitly agree with the statement nor repudiate it.


'Mentality of the Crusades'
Salih Kapusuz, a deputy leader of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s party, said Benedict’s remarks were either “the result of pitiful ignorance” about Islam and its prophet, or a deliberate distortion.

The comments raised tensions ahead of his planned visit to Turkey in November — his first pilgrimage to a Muslim country.

“He has a dark mentality that comes from the darkness of the Middle Ages. He is a poor thing that has not benefited from the spirit of reform in the Christian world,” Kapusuz was quoted as saying by the state-owned Anatolia news agency. “It looks like an effort to revive the mentality of the Crusades.”

“Benedict, the author of such unfortunate and insolent remarks, is going down in history for his words,” he said. “He is going down in history in the same category as leaders such as (Adolf) Hitler and (Benito) Mussolini.”

Turkey’s staunchly secular opposition party also demanded that Benedict apologize to Muslims before his visit to Turkey.

“The pope has thrown gasoline onto the fire ... in a world where the risk of a clash between religions is high,” said Haluk Koc, deputy head of the Republican People’s Party, as a small group of protesters left a black wreath in front of the Vatican’s embassy in Ankara.

On Thursday, Turkey’s top Islamic cleric, Ali Bardakoglu, asked Benedict to apologize for the remarks and unleashed a string of accusations against Christianity.

In Beirut, Lebanon’s most senior Shiite Muslim cleric denounced the remarks Friday and demanded the pope personally apologize for insulting Islam.

“We do not accept the apology through Vatican channels ... and ask him (Benedict) to offer a personal apology — not through his officials — to Muslims for this false reading (of Islam),” Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah told worshippers in his Friday prayers sermon.


Vatican: Pope did not mean to offend Muslims
After Benedict returned to Italy on Thursday, Vatican spokesman the Rev. Federico Lombardi said, “It certainly wasn’t the intention of the pope to carry out a deep examination of jihad (holy war) and on Muslim thought on it, much less to offend the sensibility of Muslim believers.”

Lombardi insisted the pope respects Islam. Benedict wants to “cultivate an attitude of respect and dialogue toward the other religions and cultures, obviously also toward Islam,” he said.

In a significant development Friday, the pope appointed Archbishop Dominique Mamberti, a French prelate with experience in the Muslim world, as the Vatican’s new foreign minister.

But anger still swept across the Muslim world, with Pakistan’s parliament unanimously adopting a resolution condemning the pope for making what it called “derogatory” comments about Islam, and seeking an apology from him.

“Anyone who describes Islam as a religion as intolerant encourages violence,” Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam said.

“What he has done is that he has quoted very offensive remarks by some emperor hundreds of years ago,” she added. “It is not helpful (because) we have been trying to bridge the gap, calling for dialogue and understanding between religions.”

Aslam said Muslims had a long history of tolerance, adding that when the Catholic kingdom of Spain expelled its Jewish population in 1492 they were welcomed by Muslim nations such as the Turkish Ottoman Empire.

Worldwide protests
Indonesia, which has more Muslims than any other in the world, had no immediate response to the pope’s comments, but religious groups were quick to protest, condemning the words as insensitive and damaging.

“A respected religious leader like the pope should not say such things, especially as nations across the globe are struggling to find ways to bridge differences between faiths and build understanding,” said Ma’ruf Amin, a member of Indonesia Council of Clerics, the country’s highest Islamic body.

“Such words hurt Muslims all over the world,” he said.


The head of Britain’s largest Muslim body said it was disturbed by the pope’s use of a 14th century passage. The Muslim Council, which represents 400 groups in Britain, said the emperor’s views were “ill-informed and frankly bigoted.”

“One would expect a religious leader such as the pope to act and speak with responsibility and repudiate the Byzantine emperor’s views in the interests of truth and harmonious relations between the followers of Islam and Catholicism,” said Muhammad Abdul Bari, the council’s secretary-general.

Elsewhere, Syria’s grand mufti, the country’s top Sunni Muslim religious authority, sent a letter to the pope saying he feared the comments would worsen interfaith relations.

In Cairo, Egypt, about 100 demonstrators gathered in an anti-Vatican protest outside the al-Azhar mosque, chanting “Oh Crusaders, oh cowards! Down with the pope!”

Benedict, who has made the fight against growing secularism in Western society a theme of his pontificate, is expected to visit Turkey in late November. He was invited by the staunchly secularist Turkish President Ahmet Necdet Sezer, who said the invitation was part of an effort to strengthen dialogue between religions.

© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.


Link:

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14846353/


My Views:


Did the Pope surely read the truth about Islam to 'conclude' that it was spread by the use of sword ?

It is a simple fact for non-muslim individuals across the globe to listen and blindly believe 'cheap' anti-Islam propaganda about islam being spread under the use of sword.

Non-muslims are not to blame for such nievity. They often point to the emblem on the flag of the Kingdom of SAUDI Arabia that that is a symbol to which muslims are proud of. They don't know the fact that the symbol is about the time and means that led to the formation of the modern state of the land in kuwaition.

The Pope has just brought himself to the light being a man who does not read for himself about other beliefs. He appears at least to me not like His Excellency Adolf Hitler but like G.W. Bush = a man who gets others do his homework. My advice for his Emminence the Pope is: he needs to read simple introduction over al-Wahaby first before he does on Islam but for his own goodness, taking his age into account, i'd read the Holy Qur`An first if i was HIM.

What do you think ?

.gee`mee`me`:candy:

I think moslems should grow up.

I think his words were misinterpreted. He was quoting someone else and he didn't say he agreed with the opinion. I think he should have made clearer what he meant and I think he will do so in the days to come...

I think moslems should grow up.


Don't spit in public wudjab. Back to the point. Do you care to elaborate your point of view ?




.

You know, the media manipulates what we think of each other sometimes. They like to see arguments and fights because it sells their newspapers and such. You know that this happens with the Muslims, it also happens with the Catholics.

My advice is not to be quickly convinced by what you read in an article, but to be patient and read carefully everything you can find and then think for a while and then form an opinion.

And read the other things the person has said. Pope Benedict has said other things about Islam. He has called the style of Islam of King Hassan, "the noble Islam of the King of Morocco," so he believes Islam can be noble, meaning honorable and great. He has pointed out that the Muslims are right to be disgusted with the secularism of the West and all our pornography and anti-religion and that we should be on the same side as this.

People react to the media and then things get distorted and badly understood.

Moslems are easily offended and need to grow up and get off the high horse.

Moslem spokesmen say offensive things about other religions on a most regular basis.

I like Pope Benedict, he has correctly dropped JPII's absurd political correctness.

Good for him to call a spade a spade.

Well, I recommend that people don't listen to Wudjab but just read the whole speech the Pope gave and then read his other remarks and then talk to Wudjab AND OTHER CATHOLICS about what they might mean.

Don't jump to conclusions!

You know, the media manipulates what we think of each other sometimes. They like to see arguments and fights because it sells their newspapers and such. You know that this happens with the Muslims, it also happens with the Catholics.

My advice is not to be quickly convinced by what you read in an article, but to be patient and read carefully everything you can find and then think for a while and then form an opinion.

And read the other things the person has said. Pope Benedict has said other things about Islam. He has called the style of Islam of King Hassan, "the noble Islam of the King of Morocco," so he believes Islam can be noble, meaning honorable and great. He has pointed out that the Muslims are right to be disgusted with the secularism of the West and all our pornography and anti-religion and that we should be on the same side as this.

People react to the media and then things get distorted and badly understood.



I can't agree more !

Language of the PRESS. I believe wudjab aka mr pinno is a journalist.

Watching the Kangaroo trial of His Excellency, Lawyer, President for Life, Qaed SADDAM HUSSAIN i came to learn the three types of professional languages: 1) Language of politics 2) Language of newspaper and 3) Judicial language.


We surely need to make the difference of whatever statement we come across of.

.

I can't agree more !

Language of the PRESS. I believe wudjab aka mr pinno is a journalist.

Watching the Kangaroo trial of His Excellency, Lawyer, President for Life, Qaed SADDAM HUSSAIN i came to learn the three types of professional languages: 1) Language of politics 2) Language of newspaper and 3) Judicial language.


We surely need to make the difference of whatever statement we come across of.

.

Thanks, Desert_Sloath! I'm glad we agree on the dangers of the press...

Oftentimes, they take something out of context and make it sound like it means something else. "Look! Look! The Muslims Want to Kill Everybody!" Or, from the other side, "Look! Look! The Pope Hates Islam!" Then people get upset! The press just throws gasoline on the fire.

So, I hope you will keep an open mind and just listen to all the things the Pope says about Islam in the future. He has already said some nice and friendly things, as well as expressing some concerns.

Can we expect an apology from moslems for comparing the Pope to Hitler ?

I mean, respect should go both ways.

Is protest and loud shouting the only way moslems can get their point across ? Is it beyond their means to engage in a rational debate ?

Can we expect an apology from moslems for comparing the Pope to Hitler ?

I mean, respect should go both ways.

Is protest and loud shouting the only way moslems can get their point across ? Is it beyond their means to engage in a rational debate ?

Oh, come on, Wudgie. Everybody gets compared to Hitler these days. It's debased currency, it just means, "I'm really mad at you." This was just some tomfool Turkish legislator in a moment of heat.

Much as pouring more gasoline on the fire produces inspiring flames, flames BURN. The Vatican said that the Pope was misunderstood and he didn't intend a criticism of Islam or an examination of jihad. Let's not make his comments into something they weren't.

Who's taking comments out of context ?

The Pope ?

Catholics ?

Moslems ?

Not a difficult one to answer.

PS. Please, if you do not have the cojones to stand up and defend the Holy Father instead of sucking up to the other side, you shouldn't be participating in this discussion.

I think that the media has far too much influence on people nowadays....

Who's taking comments out of context ?

The Pope ?

Catholics ?

Moslems ?

Not a difficult one to answer.

PS. Please, if you do not have the cojones to stand up and defend the Holy Father instead of sucking up to the other side, you shouldn't be participating in this discussion.

You are wudjab .. its you ... Defend the Holy Father ? Who made him Holy ? Define Holy ?

i think when some offend another person, he should expect an offence back :rolleyes:
when he appologise for what he said he'll get an apology back
an eye for an eye

Queen have you actually read what he said?

This is all political crap from failed islamic states. Burning effigies in the streets? Are we living in the 14th century? Ridiculous.

People react to the media and then things get distorted and badly understood.

There are people of the streets and authorities, and the second type starts everything at least for Muslims.
Now true that the first mistake was done by Italian media which for their own admission made a wrong report and this may have influenced normal people, but when you are a religious authority, before shooting high, you go and check.
Turkish Mufti, as he himself said, just read reports on newspapers and started shouting like a mad cow.
When you are in a delicate position in a delicate era, you dnt act like that.
You call Vatican press office and ask for the text of the speech and since you are a Mufti for sure they will listen to you.
Now please dnt play angel just for the sake of Sabla applauses.

I think his words were misinterpreted. He was quoting someone else and he didn't say he agreed with the opinion. I think he should have made clearer what he meant and I think he will do so in the days to come...

Jeff let us think a little wisely...
If he was quoting someone else.. then what was a logic quoting someone else.. and why should you quote some else who i no longer there 100yrs past.. unless the pope was after something else.. He was trying to support indirect Bush's Ideas and speeches of which are all against Muslim, The Late Pope for all his Life was trying to bridge bwtween Muslim and Christain and this guy he is Damaging that efforts..

Pope 'deeply sorry' for comments on Islam
Muslims greet pontiff's apology with mixed reaction
The Associated Press


Updated: 8:30 a.m. ET Sept. 17, 2006
CASTEL GANDOLFO, Italy - Pope Benedict XVI said Sunday that he was “deeply sorry” about the angry reaction to his recent remarks about Islam, which he said came from a text that didn’t reflect his personal opinion.

“These (words) were in fact a quotation from a Medieval text which do not in any way express my personal thought,” Benedict told pilgrims at his summer palace outside Rome.

The pope sparked the controversy when, in a speech Tuesday to university professors during a pilgrimage to his native Germany, he cited the words of a Byzantine emperor who characterized some of the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad, Islam’s founder, ( Wrong word ) as “evil and inhuman.”

“At this time I wish also to add that I am deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address at the University of Regensburg, which were considered offensive to the sensibility of Muslims,” the pope said Sunday.

Muslim leaders in the Mideast gave mixed reactions to the pontiff’s apology.

Mahmoud Ashour, the former deputy of Cairo’s Al-Azhar Mosque, the Sunni Arab world’s most powerful institution, told Al-Arabiya TV immediately after the pope’s speech that, “It is not enough. He should apologize because he insulted the beliefs of Islam. He must apologize in a frank way and say he made a mistake.”

Mohammed al-Nujeimi, a professor at the Institute of Judicial and Islamic Studies in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, also criticized the pope’s statement.

“The pope does not want to apologize. He is evading apology and what he said today is a repetition of his previous statement,” he told Al-Arabiya TV.

Visit to Turkey still on
The Vatican released a statement Saturday saying the pope “sincerely regrets” that Muslims were offended, but stopped short of the apology demanded by many Muslim leaders.

But the leader of Egypt’s largest Islamic political group, the Muslim Brotherhood, said that “while anger over the Pope’s remarks is necessary, it shouldn’t last for long.”


“While he is the head of the Catholic Church in the world, many Europeans are not following (the church) so what he said won’t influence them. Our relations with Christians should remain good, civilized and cooperative,” Mohammed Mahdi Akef told The Associated Press.

Turkey’s foreign minister said Sunday the pope was still expected to visit in November in what would be his first trip to a Muslim nation. “From our point of view, there is no change,” Abdullah Gul told reporters before departing for a trip to the United States. ( jj: prepare a sword and let him convert :sunsmile: )
The Vatican’s secretary of state echoed Gul’s remarks.

“I hope that he will do” the trip, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone was quoted as saying by the Italian news agency ANSA. “Until now, there are no reasons not to make it.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin earlier urged world religious leaders to show “responsibility and restraint” to avoid what he called “extremes” in relations between faiths.

“We understand perfectly how sensitive this sphere is. I think it would be right if we call for responsibility and restraint from the leaders of all world faiths,” he said during a meeting with parliamentary leaders from Group of Eight nations in the Russian resort city of Sochi.

In his speech on Tuesday, Benedict quoted from a book recounting a conversation between 14th century Byzantine Christian Emperor Manuel Paleologos II and an educated Persian on the truths of Christianity and Islam.

“The emperor comes to speak about the issue of jihad, holy war,” the pope said. “He said, I quote, ’Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”’

The remarks sparked protests and some violence across parts of the Muslim world.

Churches burned in West Bank
Earlier Sunday in the West Bank, two churches were set on fire as anger over the pope’s comments grew throughout the Palestinian territories.

In the town of Tulkarem, a 170-year-old stone church was torched before dawn and its interior was destroyed, Christian officials said. In the village of Tubas, a small church was attacked with firebombs and partially burned, Christians said. Neither church is Catholic, the officials said.

Palestinian Muslims hurled firebombs and opened fire at five churches in the West Bank and Gaza Strip Saturday to protest the Pope’s comments, sparking concerns of a rift between Palestinian Muslims and Christians.

Security was high at the summer palace before Benedict spoke Sunday. Police patted down many pilgrims, confiscating umbrellas with metal tips and bottles of liquids. Sharpshooters kept watch from a balcony and other officers, dressed like tourists, monitored the crowd with video cameras.

Police headquarters across Italy were also ordered to raise security at potential Catholic targets, the Italian news agency ANSA reported. However, at the Vatican, no additional security measures could be seen as tourists strolled across St. Peter’s Square.

Italian Interior Minister Giuliano Amato said he believed tensions over Benedict’s remarks wouldn’t result in any further heightening of security concerns. He told Italian state radio that suspected terrorist cells under surveillance inside the country were considered to be focused on targets “outside of Italy.”

© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.


Link:
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14871562/




My Views:

This proves that i was wright in my initial consideration of the whole thingy. When I said :

(1) Did the Pope surely read the truth about Islam to 'conclude' that it was spread by the use of sword ?

(2) He appears at least to me not like His Excellency Adolf Hitler but like G.W. Bush = a man who gets others do his homework.


I conclude:

I think the Pope has learned a good lesson. Next time he is going to have his adjutant re-organise the whole set-up. He is going to reshufle his press office and burn his speech writer.

If His Emminence does not agree with the quote :p that he was "reading" from a prepared speech then who is the influence behind it ? ;) His emminence should check the office of the speech writer. Check the background of the stuff may be there is somebody new :color:

:omg: that was very delicate thingy to have cropped up. A third party could have come in between Muslims and The Vatican ! Alhamdullilah things have come to this end. I hope. Sincerely hope it ends there.

Now the world (like King Sulaiman did) should task rats; cocroches, ants, spiders etc to go deep every where and smoke out the origin of the so called org that claimed to sent :bomb: :bomb: to the Vatican. Was that an authentic claim ?



.gee`mee mi :candy:

No one wrote for him that lesson, not speech, lesson
Go read his past articles and books if your brain can afford it

Sloath :candy:

is it such a shame to admit that Islam and Arabism were spread by sword
so2speak
What's the problem

is it such a shame to admit that Islam and Arabism were spread by sword
so2speak
What's the problem

Amo you are wrong :) and whoever says that Islam spread by the aword have to read this its long but the truth is in the History says it below:


Did Muslims really force others to convert to Islam? Is there any evidence for consistent forcible conversion throughout the Islamic history? As a matter of fact, there is no such evidence anywhere in the history of Islam. Many distinguised Western historians have attested this fact-- foremost among whom is Sir Thomas W. Arnold in his book, "The Preaching of Islam". Also there is Marshall G. Hodgson in his book, "The Venture of Islam", Albert Hourani in his book, "A History of the Arab People", Ira Lapidus in his book, "History of Islamic Societies", L.S. Starorianos in his book, "A Global Hisotry, the Human Heritage" and many others. In fact, there is substantial evidence to the contrary. We have already seen in a previous *khutbah* that Muslims were often seen as liberators of the oppressed people everywhere.

Islam has penetrated the Middle East, North Africa, Spain, West Africa, East Africa, Eastern Europe, Asia Minor, the Caucasus, Central Asia, Afghanistan, India, Western China, and the Malay archipelago. Islam in all these regions replaced so many other well-established religions: Christianity, Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Paganism and animism. What are the reasons behind the triumph of Islam over all these religions in so many different places at so many different times?

History bears witness that Islam has spread through preaching and not by force or sword. None can produce even single example of any forced conversion to Islam during the reign of the Prophet (PBUH) and the right guided caliphs. Later Muslims also followed the practice of the Prophet and his immediate successors and did not force anyone to accept Islam. Other religions owed their expansion to some mighty emperors and powerful rulers, but Islam which spread with miraculous success, far and wide, had no such patronage.
In support of the above mentioned claim that Islam was not spread by the use of sword, we reproduce the views of some Muslim and non-Muslim scholars and historians who have given their judgement in the light of historical data:
––(Michener)
“History makes it clear, however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myths that historians have ever repeated.”
––(O’Leary)
“Under the Moorish Governments of Spain, when Islam enjoyed political ascendancy, the large masses of native Christians were protected by a wide toleration, not as a political expedient, but according to the laws of Islam. The Christians were permitted to have their bishops, churches and monasteries, and to be judged by their own laws and tribunals, whenever the question at issue was one that related only to themselves.”
––(Blyden)
“They succeeded because they deserved to succeed; Islam triumphed because it brought a message that was needed by the Oriental world. Before the Heigira, the Mussslmans had endured persecution without defence; later, they put a legitimate resistance and when they became victors they practiced tolerance to a considerable degree. The idolater was not allowed to remain on Muslim soil; but the People of the Book, both Jew and Christian, by paying tribute, had a right to protection, could practice their faith freely, and were considered a part of the community. “He who wrongs a Jew or a Christian”, said Muhammad, “will have me as his accuser”. The Qur’an and the Hadiths are replete with counsels of tolerance the first Mussalman conquerors followed this advice on the whole faithfully ….. When ‘Omar entered Jerusalem, he ordered the Christians not to be molested, neither them nor their churches, and showered favours on the patriarch. When the patriarch invited him to pray in the cathedral he refused only because he feared that this might be used later as a pretext for seizing the church. What a contrast, we cannot help saying, with the entry of the crusaders, advancing in a river of blood up to the knees of the knights and the bridles of the horses, deciding to cut the throats of all Muslim men who had escaped the first slaughter.”
––(Dermenghem)
. “The God of nature has written His existence on all His works, and His law in the heart of man. To restore the knowledge of the one, and the practice of the other, has been the real or pretended aim of the prophets of every age: the liberality of Muhammad allowed to his predecessors the same credit which he claimed for himself; and the chain of inspiration was prolonged from the fall of Adam to the promulgation of the Qur’an.”
––(Gibbon)

Pt2..

A European Christian scholar Sir T.W. Arnold in his book ‘The Preaching of Islam’ writes:
“That force was not the determining factor in these conversions may be judged from the amicable relations that existed between the Christian and the Muslim Arabs. Muhammad himself had entered into treaty with several Christian tribes, promising them his protection and guaranteeing them the free exercise of their religion and to their clergy undisturbed enjoyment of their old rights and authority.”
He goes on to say: “From the examples given above of the toleration extended towards the Christian Arabs by the victorious Muslims of the first century of the Hijrah and continued by succeeding generations, we may surely infer that those Christian tribes that did embrace Islam, did so of their own choice and free will.”
“When the Muslim army reached the valley of Jordan and Abu Ubaydah pitched his comp at Fihl, the Christian inhabitants of the country wrote to the Arabs, saying: “O Muslims, we prefer you to the Byzantines, though they are of our own faith because you keep better faith with us and are more merciful to us and refrain from doing us injustice and your rule over us is better than theirs, for they have robbed us of our goods and our homes.”
“Such was the state of feeling in Syria during the campaign of 633 – 639 in which the Arabs gradually drove the Roman army out of the province. And when Damascus, in 637, set the example of making terms with the Arabs, and, thus, secured immunity from plunder and other favourable conditions, the rest of the cities of Syria were not slow to follow. Emessa, Arethusa, Hieropolis and other towns entered into treaties whereby they became tributary to the Arabs. Even the patriarch of Jerusalem surrendered the city on similar terms. The fear of religious compulsion on the part of the heretical emperor made the promise of Muslim toleration appear more attractive than the connection with the Roman Empire and a Christian government, and after the first terrors caused by the passage of an invading army, there succeeded a profound revulsion of feeling in favour of the Arab conquerors”.
who had gathered round the minister of God. Surrounded by enemies and traitors, the ancient servitors of the national gods marching to their slaughter, his followers would have inevitably perished but for the swords in their hands. And it was not until their enemies were upon them that it was declared, “the infidels regard not in a believer either ties of blood or covenant; when they break their oaths of alliance, and attack you, defend yourself”; and again, “Defend yourself against your enemies; but attack them not first: God hateth the aggressor.” To the Moslems self-defence had become a question of self-preservation. They must either submit to be massacred or fight when they were attacked. They chose the later alternative, and succeeded, after a long struggle, in subduing their enemies.”
On the Islamic attitude of freedom of religion and conscience he writes:
“If thy Lord had pleased, verily all who are in the world would have believed together.” “Wilt thou then force men to believe when belief can come only from God?”––“Adhere to those who forsake you; speak truth to your own heart; do good to everyone that does ill to you”: these are the precepts of a Teacher who has been accused of fanaticism and intolerance. Let it be remembered that these are the utterances, not of a powerless enthusiast or philosophical dreamer paralysed by the weight of opposing forces. These are the utterances of a man in the plenitude of his power, of the head of a sufficiently strong and well-organised state, able to enforce his doctrines with the edge of his reputed sword.”
Comparing Islam and Christianity in their attitude towards use of force in conversion, Syed Ameer Ali writes:
Note: Quotation at serial No. 7 taken from “Islam the Misunderstood Religion” by Syed Muhammad Qutab.
“In religion, as in politics, individuals and sects have preached toleration, and insisted upon its practice only so long as they have been powerless and feeble. The moment they have acquired strength enough to battle with the forces which they wish to supersede, tolerance gives way to persecution. With the accession of Constantine to the throne of the Caesars, Christianity was safe from molestation. But from that period commenced a system of religious persecution in its atrocity paralleled only by that of the Jews. “From the very moment,” says Lecky, “the Church obtained civil power under Constantine, the general principle of coercion was admitted and acted on, both against the Jews, the heretics, and pagans.” They were tortured with every refinement of cruelty; they were burnt at a slow-consuming fire to enable them to think of the charity and humanity of the church of Christ. Father after father wrote about the holiness of persecution. One of the greatest saints of the Church, “a saint of the most tender and exquisite piety”–supplied arguments for the most atrocious persecution. Except during the titanic struggles in Europe at the beginning of the nineteenth century, the Christian church, purporting to derive its authority from the Apostles, has never hesitated to encourage war, or to give its sanction, in the name of religion and “the glory of Christ,” to exterminating enterprises against heretics and heathens. These had no claims on Christian humanity or the law of nations; nor have the poor black races now! In the fifteenth century, the Pope granted a special charter by which the non-Christian world was allotted to the Portuguese and Spaniards in equal shares with absolute power to convert the inhabitants in any way they chose! History records how liberally they construed the permission. And all the atrocious doctrines relating to persecution and the treatment of non-Christians are unjustly based upon the words of Jesus himself! Did not the Master say, “Compel them to come in.”?
“In the hour of his greatest triumph, when the Arabian Prophet entered the old shrine of Mecca and broke down the idols, it was not in wrath or religious rage, but in pity, that he said–“Truth is come, darkness departeth,”–announcing amnesty almost universal, commanding protection to the weak and poor, and freeing fugitive slaves.
“Muhammad did not merely preach toleration; he embodied it into a law. To all conquered nations he offered liberty of worship. A nominal tribute was the only compensation they were required to pay for the observance and enjoyment of their faith. Once the tax or tribute was agreed upon, every interference with their religion or the liberty of conscience was regarded as a direct contravention of the laws of Islam. Could so much be said of other creeds? Proselytism by the sword was wholly contrary to the instincts of Muhammad, and wrangling over creeds his abhorrence. Repeatedly he exclaims, “Why wrangle over that which you know not; try to excel in good works; when you shall return to God, He will tell you about that in which you have differed.”
“The spirit of aggression never breathed itself into that code which formally incorporated the Law of Nations with the religion; and the followers of Muhammad, in the plenitude of their power, were always ready to say to their enemies, “Cease all hostility to us, and be our allies, and we shall be faithful to you; or pay tribute, and we will secure and protect you in all your rights; or adopt our religion, and you shall enjoy every privilege we ourselves possess.”

It just sounds like the new Pope has succumbed to the image of Islam portrayed by the same media that has taken his own words out of context.

I ask a kuwaition to members who believe an allegation about Islam having been spread by sword: If what you believe is true. Could you throw light on who said and under what circumstance the following sentence ?


"LA IKRAH FEE AL-DIN"



.

I posted the letter to Julanda sent by the Prophet when his army was at the gates of Oman.

To the effect, let me and and let me spread Islam or else I will lay waste to your country.

That is spreading Islam by the sword.

Islam was spread by the sword, is many many places.

If anyone good thing comes out of this whole issue, it will be re-examining of this issue.

Why should Islam be beyond critical examination ?

Hitler had a military force..

The Pope has an all-christian force

And your point is ?

I was just comparing...

Which has a stronger force do you think? Mr.Adolf or Mr.Benedict?

Pope Benedict has God behind him, so he would be the much stronger force.

Hitlers was a looser who was embraced by the mufti of Jerusalem.

Did you guys read what I posted ???

Pope Benedict has God behind him, so he would be the much stronger force.

Hitlers was a looser who was embraced by the mufti of Jerusalem.

Which brings me to the point. Prophet Mohammed, in life had God behind him and even in death he is still behind him.

No matter what a silly pope says, no matter what a silly facist called Hitler does. God is always there for those who belive in him

http://www.allaboutturkey.com/mehmet2.htm

Mehmet 2nd was known as the 'Conqueror'

And your point is ?


he means modern Popes failed to save their followers in Northern Ireland so this one is diveting attention on Islam :D



.

Nonsence.

Islam is the religion of perpetual outrage.

It's followers need to grow up.