-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Muslim fury at pope jihad comments
- Thread starter Lucky Forward
- Start date
- Status
Chairman Yang
if he talks about books, you better damn well listen
It's interesting how early Islam kept having "defensive" wars that just happened to give Muslims control of vast populations and territories. I'd also love to hear how the Islamic invasions of India, Afghanistan, Africa, and Byzantium, in particular, were at all defensive (the invasions of Hindu India were particularly bloody, ruthless, and unjustified, and most Muslims are either unaware or try to whitewash this area of Islamic history).
Yamauchi said:
Status quo? Giving a speech in which he calls the prophet of Islam evil and inhumane is the status quo? This is the leader of catholics and christians worldwide. There is no positive spin you can put on this quote, nor how someone in his position can say something so dividing and irresponsible. I realize he was 'quoting someone' but he said it in a way that clearly indicated he agreed completely with the quote. If I didn't know better it would seem he is purposely trying to entice something- its one thing for someone of lesser stature to do, but for the pope? What good can possibly come out of it?
His commments are completely out of line, damaging, derogatory, and out of place. Thats the bottom line, regardless of politics or religious opinion. You just don't say something like that as the Pope, against someone revered by billions.
MrMeltdown
Banned
Dice said:
2 The critics are blind. They cannot see that the only sword Muhammad wielded was the sword of mercy, compassion, friendship and forgivenessthe sword that conquers enemies and purifies hearts. His sword was sharper than the sword of steel.
Gyanandra Dev Sharma Shastri
yes thats a hindu fundamentalist's quote
MrMeltdown
Banned
Chairman Yang said:
Islam had defensive wars until end of 4th Caliph, after which Islam was at a point that nations itself were Islamic and just like countries like England and France and Spain went and captures Hong Kong, Subcontinent, Canada, Modern USA, and parts of China in the modern era and just like Alexander captured half of the european world and asian world, just like that, when Islam was at a point when Nations themselves because thier own entities, they started capturing, like every other religion, culture and people before AND after them.
MrMeltdown
Banned
Boogie said:
By Prof. Thomas F. Madden
ronito said:
Bombs of freedom, get it right.
And of course Muslims change history. Everyone does it. The same people who are saying Muslims are barbaric will justify nuking Japan.
The sooner that you realize that all people are assholes in equal measure (except possibly the Swiss), the better.
Slurpy said:
That's simply false. What's getting him in trouble is his ambiguity-it's difficult to say whether he agreed or not. However, he makes it explicitly clear that he is quoting someone, even using the words, "and I quote," indicating to me that he wishes to separate himself from the statement.
And EVEN IF he did agree with the statement (and there's no indication he does), the story here is still the reaction of Muslims. This hasn't gotten to the point of the cartoon controversy yet, but just watch. This will only escalate.
MrMeltdown
Banned
ronito said:
you do know when the hindu said sword of mercy he used sword as a metaphor. you knew that didnt you
MrMeltdown said:
Unless you can show me that he's a Nazi, you're going to have to do better than quoting his name.
History discussion forum talking about the aforementioned article:
http://www.mma.tv/tuf/index.cfm?ac=ListMessages&PID=1&TID=770782&FID=43&pc=52
krypt0nian
Banned
Last Pope! End Times! Pack your bags!
Chairman Yang
if he talks about books, you better damn well listen
MrMeltdown said:
Wait I thought we could only trust Muslim sources to learn about Islam? And why should I care what a Hindu fundamentalist says, especially with nothing to back it up? And who is this guy anyway (looking on Google I can't find anything except a bunch of Islamic sites requoting this over and over)?
MrMeltdown said:
No offense, but I honestly can't understand what you're saying here. Are you saying that Islam had all defensive wars until it didn't, and then all the wars by Muslim nations weren't actually Muslim? Again, I have no idea what you're getting at.
Could you address one of the examples of Islamic invasions I posted above, where the wars were pretty clearly NOT defensive and Islam DID spread (at least initially) by the sword?
MrMeltdown
Banned
An Excerpt from a Book (Islamic book)
These are two conflicting views about the way in which the message of Islam was conveyed to the world. Critics, especially orientalists, claim that the wars the Prophet of Islamsa fought were offensive wars and that people were converted by force. According to objective historians, however, this view is not upheld by the facts. The Prophetsa did not use force to preach and all the battles he fought were defensive. The expansion of Islam was due to the Prophetssa spiritual and moral power.
Nevertheless, the view that Islam was spread by force is, unfortunately, held by some Muslim leaders. They, like the orientalists, divide the life of the Prophetsa into Meccan and Medinite periods. They maintain that at Mecca he was weak and powerless, hence that compromising and submissive attitude of peaceful co-existence. Then, having gained some power at Medina, he resorted to the sword, according to this school of thought.
Had he not done so there would have been no spiritual revolution in Arabia and Islam would not have spread. The late Maulana Abul Ala Maududi was a leading proponent of this view. In his book, Al-Jihad fil Islam, the Maulana says:
It grieves my heart to quote the rest of this passage but it needs to be set out.
The above statement is doubly unfortunate because it was made by a Muslim scholar who claimed to be mizaj-shanasi-Rasul, the one who found himself in complete harmony with the mind and heart of the Prophetsa, so much so that he acquires a measure of authority in explaining the true meanings of the words and deeds of the Prophetsaa claim which, if accepted, would give the claimant as much or more right to represent than the Holy Prophetsa enjoyed vis-à-vis his understanding of the Word of God. This means that the Maulanas understanding is tragic beyond wordsit has been made by a Muslim leader and repeats a baseless assertion of Islams enemies. It is the biased orientalists who accused the Prophetsa of converting people by force. The Maulanas phraseology appears to glorify Islam, but in reality it endorses the accusation of the European critics of Islam. R. Dozy said: Muhammads generals preached Islam with a sword in one hand and the Quran in the other. Smith asserted that it was not the generals but the Prophetsa himself who preached with a sword in one hand and the Quran in the other. George Sale wrote: When the followers of the Prophet increased in number he claimed that God had allowed him to attack the unbelievers so that idolatry be destroyed and true religion be established.
The Revd Dr C. G. Pfander, who was actively engaged in missionary work among Indian Muslims during the latter part of the nineteenth century, provoked great unrest by writing controversial tracts to expose, as he put it, The false Prophet of Islam. In one such tract he said:
And after this introduction the Revd Dr Pfander concluded: You have to choose between Jesus, Word of God, and Hazrat Muhammad, son of Abdullah; between one who devoted his life to acts of piety and one who dedicated his life to the sword.4
Aloy Spranger, Henry Copey and many other critics of Islam followed the same line of attack on both Islam and the Prophetssa. Washington Irving went a step further; printed on the title page of one of his books is an imaginary painting of the Prophetsa with a sword in one hand and the Quran in the other.5
If one compares all that has been quoted above with the opening quotation of Maulana Maududis AI-Jihad fil Islam, one finds the Prophetssa critics in agreement. Both the Maulana and the orientalists maintained that Islam had a violent nature. Yet, despite this belief, the Maulana believed in Islam while they rejected it. Apart from the wording, there is no difference between paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the quotation from Maulana Maududi above and the quotation from Dr Pfander above. But one shows the respect of a Muslim; the other, the sarcasm of a bitter critic.
The snide remarks of the orientalists about the Prophet of Islamsa are as unsurprising as they are hurtful. They are sometimes made out of ignorance, but mostly out of malice. The hostility towards Islam colors the objectivity of even the most balanced historian. But most hurtful of all are the writings of Muslims who claim devoutly to follow the Prophetsa, yet present him, either through ignorance or arrogance, as a barbarian who wielded the sword to convert and conquer.
Maulana Mandudi was not convinced of the inherent beauty of Islam or that it could conquer hearts by its spiritual force alone, either in the past or present. He said:
Maulana Maududi supports Sir William Muirs twisted views of the Prophetsa and of Islam. In his biography of the Prophetsa, which he wrote to expose the false Prophet of Islam 7 at the request of Dr Pfander, Sir William Muir said: The sword of Mahomet, and the Coran are the most fatal enemies of civilization, liberty and truth which the world has yet known. 8
The great Hindu leader, Gandhi ji, in his earlier days, must have been influenced by a distorted picture of Islam such as this when he said: Islam was born in an atmosphere of violence. At that time its determining force was the sword and even today it is the sword. But Gandhi ji was an observer of great insight and subsequently he corrected himself and wrote in Young India: The more I study the more I discover that the strength of Islam does not lie in the sword.
Other Hinduseven Arya Samajists, who made an objective study of Islamfollowed Gandhi ji in his discovery. Pandit Gyanandra Dev Sharma Shastri said:
No comment! One only wishes that Maulana Maududi, a follower of the Prophet Muhammadsa, had been as fair to the Prophetsa as a follower of Krishnaas had been. Non-Muslims who have studied the history of Islam have had to admit that the Prophetsa was not only magnanimous and kind, but also a paragon of human virtues. Another Hindu, the editor of the Sat Updaish, wrote:
The anti-Muslim stance of the Arya Samaj movement is well known. Its founder, Swami Dayanand, was highly critical of Islam and its Prophetsa and yet the following statement was made by a Hindu at a meeting sponsored by the Arya Samaj in Lahore. The editor of the Vedic Magazine and a former professor of Gurukul, Kangri Ram Dev, said:
These are two conflicting views about the way in which the message of Islam was conveyed to the world. Critics, especially orientalists, claim that the wars the Prophet of Islamsa fought were offensive wars and that people were converted by force. According to objective historians, however, this view is not upheld by the facts. The Prophetsa did not use force to preach and all the battles he fought were defensive. The expansion of Islam was due to the Prophetssa spiritual and moral power.
Nevertheless, the view that Islam was spread by force is, unfortunately, held by some Muslim leaders. They, like the orientalists, divide the life of the Prophetsa into Meccan and Medinite periods. They maintain that at Mecca he was weak and powerless, hence that compromising and submissive attitude of peaceful co-existence. Then, having gained some power at Medina, he resorted to the sword, according to this school of thought.
Had he not done so there would have been no spiritual revolution in Arabia and Islam would not have spread. The late Maulana Abul Ala Maududi was a leading proponent of this view. In his book, Al-Jihad fil Islam, the Maulana says:
It grieves my heart to quote the rest of this passage but it needs to be set out.
The above statement is doubly unfortunate because it was made by a Muslim scholar who claimed to be mizaj-shanasi-Rasul, the one who found himself in complete harmony with the mind and heart of the Prophetsa, so much so that he acquires a measure of authority in explaining the true meanings of the words and deeds of the Prophetsaa claim which, if accepted, would give the claimant as much or more right to represent than the Holy Prophetsa enjoyed vis-à-vis his understanding of the Word of God. This means that the Maulanas understanding is tragic beyond wordsit has been made by a Muslim leader and repeats a baseless assertion of Islams enemies. It is the biased orientalists who accused the Prophetsa of converting people by force. The Maulanas phraseology appears to glorify Islam, but in reality it endorses the accusation of the European critics of Islam. R. Dozy said: Muhammads generals preached Islam with a sword in one hand and the Quran in the other. Smith asserted that it was not the generals but the Prophetsa himself who preached with a sword in one hand and the Quran in the other. George Sale wrote: When the followers of the Prophet increased in number he claimed that God had allowed him to attack the unbelievers so that idolatry be destroyed and true religion be established.
The Revd Dr C. G. Pfander, who was actively engaged in missionary work among Indian Muslims during the latter part of the nineteenth century, provoked great unrest by writing controversial tracts to expose, as he put it, The false Prophet of Islam. In one such tract he said:
And after this introduction the Revd Dr Pfander concluded: You have to choose between Jesus, Word of God, and Hazrat Muhammad, son of Abdullah; between one who devoted his life to acts of piety and one who dedicated his life to the sword.4
Aloy Spranger, Henry Copey and many other critics of Islam followed the same line of attack on both Islam and the Prophetssa. Washington Irving went a step further; printed on the title page of one of his books is an imaginary painting of the Prophetsa with a sword in one hand and the Quran in the other.5
If one compares all that has been quoted above with the opening quotation of Maulana Maududis AI-Jihad fil Islam, one finds the Prophetssa critics in agreement. Both the Maulana and the orientalists maintained that Islam had a violent nature. Yet, despite this belief, the Maulana believed in Islam while they rejected it. Apart from the wording, there is no difference between paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the quotation from Maulana Maududi above and the quotation from Dr Pfander above. But one shows the respect of a Muslim; the other, the sarcasm of a bitter critic.
The snide remarks of the orientalists about the Prophet of Islamsa are as unsurprising as they are hurtful. They are sometimes made out of ignorance, but mostly out of malice. The hostility towards Islam colors the objectivity of even the most balanced historian. But most hurtful of all are the writings of Muslims who claim devoutly to follow the Prophetsa, yet present him, either through ignorance or arrogance, as a barbarian who wielded the sword to convert and conquer.
Maulana Mandudi was not convinced of the inherent beauty of Islam or that it could conquer hearts by its spiritual force alone, either in the past or present. He said:
Maulana Maududi supports Sir William Muirs twisted views of the Prophetsa and of Islam. In his biography of the Prophetsa, which he wrote to expose the false Prophet of Islam 7 at the request of Dr Pfander, Sir William Muir said: The sword of Mahomet, and the Coran are the most fatal enemies of civilization, liberty and truth which the world has yet known. 8
The great Hindu leader, Gandhi ji, in his earlier days, must have been influenced by a distorted picture of Islam such as this when he said: Islam was born in an atmosphere of violence. At that time its determining force was the sword and even today it is the sword. But Gandhi ji was an observer of great insight and subsequently he corrected himself and wrote in Young India: The more I study the more I discover that the strength of Islam does not lie in the sword.
Other Hinduseven Arya Samajists, who made an objective study of Islamfollowed Gandhi ji in his discovery. Pandit Gyanandra Dev Sharma Shastri said:
No comment! One only wishes that Maulana Maududi, a follower of the Prophet Muhammadsa, had been as fair to the Prophetsa as a follower of Krishnaas had been. Non-Muslims who have studied the history of Islam have had to admit that the Prophetsa was not only magnanimous and kind, but also a paragon of human virtues. Another Hindu, the editor of the Sat Updaish, wrote:
The anti-Muslim stance of the Arya Samaj movement is well known. Its founder, Swami Dayanand, was highly critical of Islam and its Prophetsa and yet the following statement was made by a Hindu at a meeting sponsored by the Arya Samaj in Lahore. The editor of the Vedic Magazine and a former professor of Gurukul, Kangri Ram Dev, said:
MrMeltdown
Banned
Chairman Yang said:
read the article excerpt above
So wait. I don't buy this whole "You can't use Christian Orientalist sources!" and then you come back with Islamic sources. I say if people against you can't use non muslim sources to bolster their arguments, then you shouldn't be allowed to use muslim sources to bolster yours. Fair is fair.
Chairman Yang
if he talks about books, you better damn well listen
MrMeltdown said:
Thanks for posting it, but it doesn't actually address any of my questions. It's basically a bunch of quotes saying that Islam didn't spread by the sword, but without any historical data or substance to back it up.
Again, could you inform me about the Islamic invasions of India, Afghanistan, Africa, and Byzantium, and how the Islamic world never used violence and war to impose their faith? I'm trying to have an open mind here but all of the historical evidence I've seen points the other way.
MrMeltdown
Banned
ronito said:
most of the qoutes in defense of Islam is by non muslim sources.
MrMeltdown
Banned
Chairman Yang said:
No, Islam did not use voilence and war to impose thier faith. simple as that. Only a fool (like alqaeda) would believe that. Ive been studying Islam all my life, I should know that for a fact
MrMeltdown
Banned
ronito said:as are most quotes against.
ur not making any sense. Ofcourse all against would be non muslims. would you have a muslim say something against Islam itself?
MrMeltdown
Banned
ronito said:
would you accept those Saudi Sheik articles as reliable sources about Christianity?
i wasn't paying attention and read the title of this thread as "muslim furry jihad." i would almost approve of that -- would give violent muslim fundamentalists something to do, would clean up the internet, would make it possible to enjoy "the lion king" again.
MrMeltdown
Banned
ronito said:
well there in lies the problem. Muslims believe in Jesus and Moses, So true muslims get pissed off by wrong views about Jesus and Moses, Christians and Jews dont believe in Mohammad.
MrMeltdown
Banned
ronito said:
Most Muslims dont accept fundamenalist negative views on Christianity. Most Christians dont accept fundamentalist negative views on Islam
Those who do accept it as a source, be it negative and crazily anti-<name religion> are the problem.
MrMeltdown
Banned
DCharlie said:
Osama was an apprentice of teachings of Maulana Maodoodi.
I fear u think like Osama LOL
MrMeltdown
Banned
ronito said:
short attention span FTL. these are qoutes from maulana maudoodi, one of the Islamic (false) leaders in 21st century which influenced alqaeda
MrMeltdown
Banned
Boogie said:
ur just a hater unfortunately, i feel sorry for you
Chairman Yang
if he talks about books, you better damn well listen
Boogie said:
dont worry Boogie u 2 will see the truth when the peaceful sword of mercy and positive hate comes down on ur ass
Dice
Pokémon Parentage Conspiracy Theorist
No, this doesn't make sense.MrMeltdown said:
You believe in a different version of Jesus and Moses. You use the same name, refer to someone from a similar location, but ultimately you view them as entirely different persons as Jews and Christians do. Rather than peacefully disagreeing, as the Jews and Christians are able to do about Jesus, you get pissed off. What's with that? You say we are ignorant and blind to the apparent truth of who they were, and yet you contradict yourself by acting like it is a purposeful, evil decision in us or something.
I'm really trying to understand, I even bought a nice Quran with translation, paraphrase and commentary by Abdullah Yusuf Ali who seems very highly respected among Muslims, but with all the explanations it always comes back to these things. This contradiction lets weak men of the Muslim faith become rageful and violent, and then the more peaceful ones in non-abaric countries sit on their hands talking about the internal struggle and never speak up to rebuke their brethren.
You make all the arguments in the world against the "unjust" views of non-muslims, and to explain the frustration of your people, but do nothing to silence this self-proclaimed evil of violence in your own people. You want to talk about being objective, there reaches a point that you have to stop sympathizing out of understanding and start objectively dealing with problems in your own people. I know being a reasonable christian doesn't do anything to help change the crazy, quarrelsome fundamentalism, so I speak up. I say this to encourage you as a fellow human being who wants to do good. Because ultimately, sitting around bitching about accusations and whether they are true or not doesn't change anything.
If you want to prove that your religion is peaceful and harmonious with others, you need to prove it in your actions and words and encourage those of your faith to do likewise. If you're forgiving, then you can forgive accusations that others make against and ignore them, even take the next step and befriend your accusers. The biggest problem is that everyone sits on the side of "their people" speaking of those "other people" instead of meeting together in the middle. Even if it's good stuff, a lack of fellowship will ensure a lasting lack of understanding or peace.
Here is some of my kind of religion
- Status