Comments on: Oh no, not again! http://www.shaarique.com/oh-no-not-again/ That's how life is! Thu, 28 Aug 2008 09:06:06 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: Sharique http://www.shaarique.com/oh-no-not-again/#comment-713 Sharique Sun, 15 Oct 2006 09:48:37 +0000 http://www.shaarique.com/oh-no-not-again/#comment-713 Happens..media needs material to write about and anything that incites passion is windfall for them. BTW read the letter of islamic scholars to the Pope http://www.islamicamagazine.com/ Happens..media needs material to write about and anything that incites passion is windfall for them. BTW read the letter of islamic scholars to the Pope http://www.islamicamagazine.com/

]]> By: sf http://www.shaarique.com/oh-no-not-again/#comment-706 sf Sat, 14 Oct 2006 17:58:13 +0000 http://www.shaarique.com/oh-no-not-again/#comment-706 Recent media reports took a few lines out of context of Pope Benedict XVI's 8-page lecture on the topic "The Relationship between Reason and Faith" to theology students and distorted its true meaning and intent. The media labelling the event as a veiled attack on Islam was indeed misleading. The German-born Pope's September 12 lecture at the University of Regensburg, Germany, was trying to explain the relationship between Reason and Faith. It is typical of Scholastic methodology in discussing such propositions to consider a variety of opinions only to arrive at a deep understanding of the truth which it wishes to establish without affirming or supporting the opinions quoted. In the format of such Scholastic methodology, it was necessary for the 79-year-old leader of the world's 1.1 billion Catholics to make reference to a quote from a debate between a Christian Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus and a learned Persian scholar in 1391 on Islam. This was one of the historical references of an opinion that touched upon an issue of his topic. Other opinions too by Islamic and Christian religious scholars like Ibn Hazn, Duns Scoutus, Augustine and Thomas Aquinas were also referred to without defending or condemning them. Media Hype Stokes Controversy The media having obtained a copy of the speech, selectively highlighted six lines out of context of an eight-page discourse, unwittingly I presume, making it appear that it was a statement made by the Pope on Islam. This is what stirred up the controversy and evoked the anger of the Islamic world. A philosophic-theological discussion on the topic of Faith and Reason was conducted according to a methodology of academic discourse understood by Catholic theology students. But if this is reported to the general audience who are not initiated into the techniques of such discussions, it is possible that it may be misunderstood and cause offence, as it did to Muslims all over the world. This is the reason the Pope tendered a personal apology, saying that he was deeply sorry for the offence it had caused the Islamic community. The statement, constantly being attributed to him, was not his personal pronouncement but an opinion which he did not support but was necessitated due the nature of the format of the discourse. Pope Benedict has always worked for the unity of religions and after his election as Pope in April 2005 has reiterated the call for inter-religious dialogue and recently a Christian- Islamic dialogue. The media labelled the controversial lecture was indeed a well-meaning exercise to bring better understanding between religions by demonstrating the close relationship between faith and reason. Catholics have great respect for the teachings of Islam and have at several occasions underlined the close relationship between Islam and their own religion. It is a matter of regret that the media continues to obstinately persist in keeping the controversy alive. Stalwarts of the press like Vir Sanghvi, V. Gangadhar, and M. Akbar are determined to paint the Pope in unfavourable light calling him biased and attributing to him statements containing prejudiced innuendo against Islam. An objective reading of the original indicates that the Pope fully did not agree with the statement of Emperor Manuel II when he said that the Emperor should have known Sura 2: 256 of The Holy Quoran that says "The is no compulsion in religion". He was therefore not Anti -Islamic. Further he equally pulls up Christian philosophers as well as the Persian scholar, Ibn Hazn for their views (eg. Duns Scottus, Christian philosophers and other modern philosophers like Descartes, E. Kant and other de hellenization trends) that would exclude reason from God, and lead to a position of God being capricious. This would open the way to violence both in modern Europe and rest of the World irrespective of the faith they belong to. I presume only those with a background of philosophy and theology would be able to grasp the import of the Pope's lecture and not journalists who flaunt pretensions of profound learning. Jihad, Spiritual Struggle For God The Catholic world appreciates the well-known definition that jihad according to Holy Koran essentially means a spiritual struggle or striving. The Holy Koran clearly states that jihad primarily means a personal jihad - a struggle against self for God. Secondly, it is a verbal jihad - a struggle – a striving against untruth by always speaking words of truth in the name of Allah. Finally, it means physical jihad - the use of violence in defence of Muslims if they are attacked and cannot relocate themselves to escape persecution. This defensive nature of physical violence is frequently lost among a small percentage that uses aggressive violence in the name of religion. Violence Incompatible With God It is with regard to the wrong conclusion derived from the rich spiritual and defensive concept of jihad that the Pope says that violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the rational soul. Moreover, the Pope has appreciated the moral virtues and discipline taught by Islam on various occasions. Claims are being made that the Pontiff did not mention what he appreciated of Islam in this particular discourse. It is not fair to expect the Pope to address all aspects of an opinion where it does not feature as the main topic of a lecture given to a specific group of students and not meant for the public in general. It is unfortunate that the media hype has so portrayed the event that it gave scope for imputing motives to the Pope and attaching meanings to his words that did not exist. Pope Benedict was definitely not trying to draw a wedge between communities but striving to unite them by his profound reflections calling for faith and reason to unite so that all religions would lead to harmony. Recent media reports took a few lines out of context of Pope Benedict XVI’s 8-page lecture on the topic “The Relationship between Reason and Faith” to theology students and distorted its true meaning and intent. The media labelling the event as a veiled attack on Islam was indeed misleading.

The German-born Pope’s September 12 lecture at the University of Regensburg, Germany, was trying to explain the relationship between Reason and Faith. It is typical of Scholastic methodology in discussing such propositions to consider a variety of opinions only to arrive at a deep understanding of the truth which it wishes to establish without affirming or supporting the opinions quoted.

In the format of such Scholastic methodology, it was necessary for the 79-year-old leader of the world’s 1.1 billion Catholics to make reference to a quote from a debate between a Christian Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus and a learned Persian scholar in 1391 on Islam. This was one of the historical references of an opinion that touched upon an issue of his topic. Other opinions too by Islamic and Christian religious scholars like Ibn Hazn, Duns Scoutus, Augustine and Thomas Aquinas were also referred to without defending or condemning them.

Media Hype Stokes Controversy

The media having obtained a copy of the speech, selectively highlighted six lines out of context of an eight-page discourse, unwittingly I presume, making it appear that it was a statement made by the Pope on Islam. This is what stirred up the controversy and evoked the anger of the Islamic world.

A philosophic-theological discussion on the topic of Faith and Reason was conducted according to a methodology of academic discourse understood by Catholic theology students. But if this is reported to the general audience who are not initiated into the techniques of such discussions, it is possible that it may be misunderstood and cause offence, as it did to Muslims all over the world. This is the reason the Pope tendered a personal apology, saying that he was deeply sorry for the offence it had caused the Islamic community. The statement, constantly being attributed to him, was not his personal pronouncement but an opinion which he did not support but was necessitated due the nature of the format of the discourse.

Pope Benedict has always worked for the unity of religions and after his election as Pope in April 2005 has reiterated the call for inter-religious dialogue and recently a Christian- Islamic dialogue. The media labelled the controversial lecture was indeed a well-meaning exercise to bring better understanding between religions by demonstrating the close relationship between faith and reason. Catholics have great respect for the teachings of Islam and have at several occasions underlined the close relationship between Islam and their own religion.

It is a matter of regret that the media continues to obstinately persist in keeping the controversy alive. Stalwarts of the press like Vir Sanghvi, V. Gangadhar, and M. Akbar are determined to paint the Pope in unfavourable light calling him biased and attributing to him statements containing prejudiced innuendo against Islam. An objective reading of the original indicates that the Pope fully did not agree with the statement of Emperor Manuel II when he said that the Emperor should have known Sura 2: 256 of The Holy Quoran that says “The is no compulsion in religion”. He was therefore not Anti -Islamic. Further he equally pulls up Christian philosophers as well as the Persian scholar, Ibn Hazn for their views (eg. Duns Scottus, Christian philosophers and other modern philosophers like Descartes, E. Kant and other de hellenization trends) that would exclude reason from God, and lead to a position of God being capricious. This would open the way to violence both in modern Europe and rest of the World irrespective of the faith they belong to. I presume only those with a background of philosophy and theology would be able to grasp the import of the Pope’s lecture and not journalists who flaunt pretensions of profound learning.

Jihad, Spiritual Struggle For God

The Catholic world appreciates the well-known definition that jihad according to Holy Koran essentially means a spiritual struggle or striving. The Holy Koran clearly states that jihad primarily means a personal jihad - a struggle against self for God. Secondly, it is a verbal jihad - a struggle – a striving against untruth by always speaking words of truth in the name of Allah. Finally, it means physical jihad - the use of violence in defence of Muslims if they are attacked and cannot relocate themselves to escape persecution. This defensive nature of physical violence is frequently lost among a small percentage that uses aggressive violence in the name of religion.

Violence Incompatible With God

It is with regard to the wrong conclusion derived from the rich spiritual and defensive concept of jihad that the Pope says that violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the rational soul. Moreover, the Pope has appreciated the moral virtues and discipline taught by Islam on various occasions. Claims are being made that the Pontiff did not mention what he appreciated of Islam in this particular discourse. It is not fair to expect the Pope to address all aspects of an opinion where it does not feature as the main topic of a lecture given to a specific group of students and not meant for the public in general.

It is unfortunate that the media hype has so portrayed the event that it gave scope for imputing motives to the Pope and attaching meanings to his words that did not exist. Pope Benedict was definitely not trying to draw a wedge between communities but striving to unite them by his profound reflections calling for faith and reason to unite so that all religions would lead to harmony.

]]> By: When frivolous opinions buzzed at Serendipity http://www.shaarique.com/oh-no-not-again/#comment-485 When frivolous opinions buzzed at Serendipity Tue, 26 Sep 2006 10:21:17 +0000 http://www.shaarique.com/oh-no-not-again/#comment-485 [...] to that I ask which religion treats poor and downtrodden better that Islam? Does any other religion in the world has the concept of Zakaat? The way Arabs have supported the Palestinians is praiseworthy. Tons of food goes to Africa after Haj evey year. [...] [...] to that I ask which religion treats poor and downtrodden better that Islam? Does any other religion in the world has the concept of Zakaat? The way Arabs have supported the Palestinians is praiseworthy. Tons of food goes to Africa after Haj evey year. [...]

]]> By: Sharique http://www.shaarique.com/oh-no-not-again/#comment-378 Sharique Wed, 20 Sep 2006 07:12:37 +0000 http://www.shaarique.com/oh-no-not-again/#comment-378 And regarding your Hadith, i think you referring to apostasy. Here is a wonderful analysis by <strong><em><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.islamonline.net/English/contemporary/2006/04/article02.shtml" rel="nofollow">Dr. Jamal Badawi</a></em></strong> I will sum up his conclusions <strong /><strong>Conclusion</strong> <strong /><strong /> <hr size="1" /><strong>There is no firm ground for the claim that apostasy is in itself a mandatory fixed punishment (hadd), namely capital punishment.</strong> <hr size="1" /><strong /> <ul><strong /> <li><strong>The preponderance of evidence from both the Qur'an and Sunnah indicates that there is no firm ground for the claim that apostasy is in itself a mandatory fixed punishment (hadd), namely capital punishment.</strong></li> <li><strong>References to early capital punishment for apostasy were not due to apostasy itself, but rather other capital crimes that were coupled with it.</strong></li> <li><strong>In the context of the besieged early Muslim community, apostasy was a major threat to the nascent Muslim community. Taking a passive attitude towards it would have jeopardized the very emergence of the Muslim community. This may be one reason why the consensus of scholars is that apostasy is an offense (in the context of an Islamic society) is an offense. However, there are wide divergence of views about its suitable punishment. Sheikh `Abdul-Majeed Subh argues that "we can conclude that the issue of the penalty prescribed for apostasy is dependent on the public interest of the nation. Therefore, there is no harm in ignoring the apostasy of an individual as long as he or she does not harm the nation. On the other hand, if a group of apostates endangers the security and interests of the Muslim community, then the Muslim ruler should consider them to be a danger and threat to society."</strong></li> <li><strong>As religious opinions (fatwas) change with the changing time, place, custom, and circumstances, this issue should be reexamined within the basic boundaries of Islamic jurisprudence and not simply of pressures of others. No Muslim is required to change the indisputable stable and fixed aspects of Shari`ah for the sake of pleasing others or earning the title "moderate" or "open minded." In the meantime, jurisprudent rulings and interpretations in the non-fixed area need not be permanent either. </strong></li> </ul> And regarding your Hadith, i think you referring to apostasy. Here is a wonderful analysis by Dr. Jamal Badawi

I will sum up his conclusions

Conclusion

There is no firm ground for the claim that apostasy is in itself a mandatory fixed punishment (hadd), namely capital punishment.

  • The preponderance of evidence from both the Qur’an and Sunnah indicates that there is no firm ground for the claim that apostasy is in itself a mandatory fixed punishment (hadd), namely capital punishment.
  • References to early capital punishment for apostasy were not due to apostasy itself, but rather other capital crimes that were coupled with it.
  • In the context of the besieged early Muslim community, apostasy was a major threat to the nascent Muslim community. Taking a passive attitude towards it would have jeopardized the very emergence of the Muslim community. This may be one reason why the consensus of scholars is that apostasy is an offense (in the context of an Islamic society) is an offense. However, there are wide divergence of views about its suitable punishment. Sheikh `Abdul-Majeed Subh argues that “we can conclude that the issue of the penalty prescribed for apostasy is dependent on the public interest of the nation. Therefore, there is no harm in ignoring the apostasy of an individual as long as he or she does not harm the nation. On the other hand, if a group of apostates endangers the security and interests of the Muslim community, then the Muslim ruler should consider them to be a danger and threat to society.”
  • As religious opinions (fatwas) change with the changing time, place, custom, and circumstances, this issue should be reexamined within the basic boundaries of Islamic jurisprudence and not simply of pressures of others. No Muslim is required to change the indisputable stable and fixed aspects of Shari`ah for the sake of pleasing others or earning the title “moderate” or “open minded.” In the meantime, jurisprudent rulings and interpretations in the non-fixed area need not be permanent either.
]]> By: Sharique http://www.shaarique.com/oh-no-not-again/#comment-377 Sharique Wed, 20 Sep 2006 07:05:43 +0000 http://www.shaarique.com/oh-no-not-again/#comment-377 The first verse of Quran is from 8:60. You can't misquote the Quran. As you have read above, these verses were revealed on specific occasions so you can't generalize them. Here is the context of the revelation of the above verse. The immediate occasion of this injunction was the weakness of cavalry and appointments of war in the early fight of Islam. In every war, physical, moral, or spiritual, arm yourself with the best weapons and the best arms against your enemy, so as to instill wholesome respect into him for you and the cause you stand for I have taken these from sources and they are not my own words. But the underlying fact is don't misquote the Quran!! Read my above comment thoroughly. I will be more than glad to answer more queries from you. The first verse of Quran is from 8:60.

You can’t misquote the Quran. As you have read above, these verses were revealed on specific occasions so you can’t generalize them. Here is the context of the revelation of the above verse.

The immediate occasion of this injunction was the weakness of cavalry and appointments of war in the early fight of Islam. In every war, physical, moral, or spiritual, arm yourself with the best weapons and the best arms against your enemy, so as to instill wholesome respect into him for you and the cause you stand for

I have taken these from sources and they are not my own words. But the underlying fact is don’t misquote the Quran!! Read my above comment thoroughly. I will be more than glad to answer more queries from you.

]]> By: Sharique http://www.shaarique.com/oh-no-not-again/#comment-376 Sharique Wed, 20 Sep 2006 06:54:34 +0000 http://www.shaarique.com/oh-no-not-again/#comment-376 Manolo, I am going to answer your question in parts- This is the reply to your second quote from Quran <p></p> <p>To truly grasp the significance of this verse, <strong>we need to understand the context of the revelation of this verse</strong>. Revelations came to the Prophet, when Guidance was actually needed concerning a specific situation. The above verse, among others, is an example of this. For this reason, knowledge of the context of revelation is absolutely necessary for the proper understanding of this verse or any verse in the Qur’an. <br />Surat At-Tawbah was revealed to the Prophet <strong>in a situation when the pagans were at war with the newly organized Muslim Ummah</strong> (nation); and the Muslims were fighting them for survival. One of the issues dealt with in this verse is how to treat those who break existing treaties. The Muslims, specifically, are asked to fight those who break treaties, until they were thoroughly routed or they repented and agreed to follow the conditions imposed on them, which will ultimately be for the good of all. </p> <p><br /><strong><i>Jizyah</i> (tribute) is a much misunderstood tax the non-Muslims were asked to pay to the government in lieu of the Muslims’ payment of zakah</strong>. <strong>By paying the <i>jizyah</i> non-Muslims were guaranteed protection and rights including the right to worship as they chose--as long as they did not conspire against the Islamic authority.</strong> This can be equated nowadays to ‘nationality’, or ‘citizenship’. It is important to note that many times throughout Islamic history Christians and Jews opted to pay the <i>jizyah</i> and live under Muslim authority rather than the other options available to them under the various empires and ruling bodies. They knew that under Islam their humanity, rights and so on were respected and protected, as long as they fell in line with the boundaries established by Islam. <br />Under an Islamic government, Muslim and non-Muslim citizens are free to practice their religion and both should obey the laws of the land. If the government levied a tax only on its Muslim subjects, it would be unjust, as all are equal under the Muslim administration. At the same time, it would certainly be unjust to impose zakah on the non-Muslims; so a new tax called <i>jizyah</i> was introduced to balance the situation. All of us know that any government can legitimately ask its citizens to obey its laws; and a rebellious defiance of the laws of the land is not condoned by any government. <br />We should remember that the Muslims were a small band of people facing total annihilation. So, the Prophet was compelled to fight for existence; for survival. He was a model for his followers even in fighting a last-ditch battle. Those who believe in “the Son of God who was betrayed, bound, beaten, and crucified� obviously have difficulty in accepting a fighting prophet - a prophet who, with righteous indignation, stands up for truth and justice. Islam does not believe in a God Who was tortured, killed and left helpless to be defeated by his enemies! Where is the mercy of God, when He demands the sacrifice of an innocent person to atone for the sins of others? Can He not choose to forgive mankind Himself without exacting retribution? <br />Islam is a very practical religion that encompasses all aspects of human life then and now. Therefore, when the Muslims were organized for the first time into a community in those lawless times, there had to be laws governing matters of social organization, and even rules for battle. We cannot imagine a situation where fighting is completely ruled out either. </p> <p><br /><strong>The immediate context of the above verse is that of a “war in progress� and not a general directive. It was an attempt to motivate Muslims to defend themselves.</strong> It was in view of the extreme danger the Muslims were facing, that they were permitted to fight in the first place. The Qur’an says: <br />"To those against whom war is made, permission is given [to fight], because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid;- [They are] those who have been expelled from their homes in defiance of right,- [for no cause] except that they say, "our Lord is Allah�. Did not Allah check one set of people by means of another, there would surely have been pulled down monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, in which the name of Allah is commemorated in abundant measure. Allah will certainly aid those who aid his [cause];- for verily Allah is Full of strength, Exalted in might, [Able to enforce His will]" (Al-Hajj 22:39-41). </p> <p><br />"Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loves not transgressors. And slay them wherever you catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter..." (Al-Baqarah 2:190-191). </p> <p><br />It is clear from the above verses that when Muslims fight, it must be for the sake of truth and justice. Furthermore, the Prophet (peace be upon him) instructed his followers to maintain the utmost discipline even in battles, including avoiding injury to the innocent and using only the minimum force needed. <br />Even a cursory study of the Qur'an must convince an objective student, that Islam does not permit, condone or promote violence. On the contrary, it abhors violence and allows it only in self-defense, and certainly not to obtain oil and other forms of material wealth. <br />May Allah help and guide us in presenting the Truth of Islam to the world!</p> Manolo,
I am going to answer your question in parts-
This is the reply to your second quote from Quran

To truly grasp the significance of this verse, we need to understand the context of the revelation of this verse. Revelations came to the Prophet, when Guidance was actually needed concerning a specific situation. The above verse, among others, is an example of this. For this reason, knowledge of the context of revelation is absolutely necessary for the proper understanding of this verse or any verse in the Qur’an.
Surat At-Tawbah was revealed to the Prophet in a situation when the pagans were at war with the newly organized Muslim Ummah (nation); and the Muslims were fighting them for survival. One of the issues dealt with in this verse is how to treat those who break existing treaties. The Muslims, specifically, are asked to fight those who break treaties, until they were thoroughly routed or they repented and agreed to follow the conditions imposed on them, which will ultimately be for the good of all.

Jizyah (tribute) is a much misunderstood tax the non-Muslims were asked to pay to the government in lieu of the Muslims’ payment of zakah. By paying the jizyah non-Muslims were guaranteed protection and rights including the right to worship as they chose–as long as they did not conspire against the Islamic authority. This can be equated nowadays to ‘nationality’, or ‘citizenship’. It is important to note that many times throughout Islamic history Christians and Jews opted to pay the jizyah and live under Muslim authority rather than the other options available to them under the various empires and ruling bodies. They knew that under Islam their humanity, rights and so on were respected and protected, as long as they fell in line with the boundaries established by Islam.
Under an Islamic government, Muslim and non-Muslim citizens are free to practice their religion and both should obey the laws of the land. If the government levied a tax only on its Muslim subjects, it would be unjust, as all are equal under the Muslim administration. At the same time, it would certainly be unjust to impose zakah on the non-Muslims; so a new tax called jizyah was introduced to balance the situation. All of us know that any government can legitimately ask its citizens to obey its laws; and a rebellious defiance of the laws of the land is not condoned by any government.
We should remember that the Muslims were a small band of people facing total annihilation. So, the Prophet was compelled to fight for existence; for survival. He was a model for his followers even in fighting a last-ditch battle. Those who believe in “the Son of God who was betrayed, bound, beaten, and crucified� obviously have difficulty in accepting a fighting prophet - a prophet who, with righteous indignation, stands up for truth and justice. Islam does not believe in a God Who was tortured, killed and left helpless to be defeated by his enemies! Where is the mercy of God, when He demands the sacrifice of an innocent person to atone for the sins of others? Can He not choose to forgive mankind Himself without exacting retribution?
Islam is a very practical religion that encompasses all aspects of human life then and now. Therefore, when the Muslims were organized for the first time into a community in those lawless times, there had to be laws governing matters of social organization, and even rules for battle. We cannot imagine a situation where fighting is completely ruled out either.

The immediate context of the above verse is that of a “war in progress� and not a general directive. It was an attempt to motivate Muslims to defend themselves. It was in view of the extreme danger the Muslims were facing, that they were permitted to fight in the first place. The Qur’an says:
“To those against whom war is made, permission is given [to fight], because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid;- [They are] those who have been expelled from their homes in defiance of right,- [for no cause] except that they say, “our Lord is Allahâ€?. Did not Allah check one set of people by means of another, there would surely have been pulled down monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, in which the name of Allah is commemorated in abundant measure. Allah will certainly aid those who aid his [cause];- for verily Allah is Full of strength, Exalted in might, [Able to enforce His will]” (Al-Hajj 22:39-41).

“Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loves not transgressors. And slay them wherever you catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter…” (Al-Baqarah 2:190-191).

It is clear from the above verses that when Muslims fight, it must be for the sake of truth and justice. Furthermore, the Prophet (peace be upon him) instructed his followers to maintain the utmost discipline even in battles, including avoiding injury to the innocent and using only the minimum force needed.
Even a cursory study of the Qur’an must convince an objective student, that Islam does not permit, condone or promote violence. On the contrary, it abhors violence and allows it only in self-defense, and certainly not to obtain oil and other forms of material wealth.
May Allah help and guide us in presenting the Truth of Islam to the world!

]]> By: Sharjeel http://www.shaarique.com/oh-no-not-again/#comment-375 Sharjeel Wed, 20 Sep 2006 05:46:29 +0000 http://www.shaarique.com/oh-no-not-again/#comment-375 Here is a well written reply to Pope and his comments http://www.thetruecall.com/home/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=241 Here is a well written reply to Pope and his comments

http://www.thetruecall.com/home/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=241

]]> By: Manolo http://www.shaarique.com/oh-no-not-again/#comment-371 Manolo Tue, 19 Sep 2006 20:31:14 +0000 http://www.shaarique.com/oh-no-not-again/#comment-371 <i>"Muster against them all the men and cavalry at your disposal so that you can strike terror into the enemies of Allah and of the believers <b>and others beside them who may be unknown to you, though Allah knows them</b>. And remember whatever you spend for the cause of Allah shall be repaid to you. You shall not be wronged." ( Qur’an 80:60)</i> <i>"Fight those who believe not in Allah or the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission and are subdued." ( Qur’an 90:29)</i> <i>"Allah's Apostle said, The blood of a Muslim, who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam and leaves the Muslims." (Hadith 9:83:17)</i> May be Islam means peace between believers, but does it also mean peace with regard to infidels o apostates? “Muster against them all the men and cavalry at your disposal so that you can strike terror into the enemies of Allah and of the believers and others beside them who may be unknown to you, though Allah knows them. And remember whatever you spend for the cause of Allah shall be repaid to you. You shall not be wronged.” ( Qur’an 80:60)

“Fight those who believe not in Allah or the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission and are subdued.” ( Qur’an 90:29)

“Allah’s Apostle said, The blood of a Muslim, who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam and leaves the Muslims.” (Hadith 9:83:17)

May be Islam means peace between believers, but does it also mean peace with regard to infidels o apostates?

]]> By: Sharique http://www.shaarique.com/oh-no-not-again/#comment-368 Sharique Tue, 19 Sep 2006 18:23:46 +0000 http://www.shaarique.com/oh-no-not-again/#comment-368 Well Stan Islam never spread my force. Its because you cannot force an entire lot of people to change. You can influence few my the sword but the whole country..impossible. And plus do you have any reference from history to substantiate your claim? Well Stan Islam never spread my force. Its because you cannot force an entire lot of people to change. You can influence few my the sword but the whole country..impossible. And plus do you have any reference from history to substantiate your claim?

]]> By: I-Am-Stan http://www.shaarique.com/oh-no-not-again/#comment-366 I-Am-Stan Tue, 19 Sep 2006 17:34:01 +0000 http://www.shaarique.com/oh-no-not-again/#comment-366 The Pope could have explained himself better and make references to the Crusades where we as Christians did the same thing which was very wrong and what we did made very little progress with converting others to Christianity. Should the Pope apologize? Not really. The Pope could have explained himself better and make references to the Crusades where we as Christians did the same thing which was very wrong and what we did made very little progress with converting others to Christianity. Should the Pope apologize? Not really.

]]>