Amrika, Pakistan, Islam and everything in between

Author: rubeel (Page 13 of 18)

Muhammad's Sword

Muhammad’s Sword
23-09-2006

Since the days when Roman Emperors threw Christians to the lions, the relations between the emperors and the heads of the church have undergone many changes.

Constantine the Great, who became Emperor in the year 306 – exactly 1700 years ago – encouraged the practice of Christianity in the empire, which included Palestine. Centuries later, the church split into an Eastern (Orthodox) and a Western (Catholic) part. In the West, the Bishop of Rome, who acquired the title of Pope, demanded that the Emperor accept his superiority.

The struggle between the Emperors and the Popes played a central role in European history and divided the peoples. It knew ups and downs. Some Emperors dismissed or expelled a Pope, some Popes dismissed or excommunicated an Emperor. One of the Emperors, Henry IV, “walked to Canossa”, standing for three days barefoot in the snow in front of the Pope’s castle, until the Pope deigned to annul his excommunication.

But there were times when Emperors and Popes lived in peace with each other. We are witnessing such a period today. Between the present Pope, Benedict XVI, and the present Emperor, George Bush II, there exists a wonderful harmony. Last week’s speech by the Pope, which aroused a world-wide storm, went well with Bush’s crusade against “Islamofascism”, in the context of the “Clash of Civilizations”.

IN HIS lecture at a German university, the 265th Pope described what he sees as a huge difference between Christianity and Islam: while Christianity is based on reason, Islam denies it. While Christians see the logic of God’s actions, Muslims deny that there is any such logic in the actions of Allah.

As a Jewish atheist, I do not intend to enter the fray of this debate. It is much beyond my humble abilities to understand the logic of the Pope. But I cannot overlook one passage, which concerns me too, as an Israeli living near the fault-line of this “war of civilizations”.
In order to prove the lack of reason in Islam, the Pope asserts that the prophet Muhammad ordered his followers to spread their religion by the sword. According to the Pope, that is unreasonable, because faith is born of the soul, not of the body. How can the sword influence the soul?

To support his case, the Pope quoted – of all people – a Byzantine Emperor, who belonged, of course, to the competing Eastern Church. At the end of the 14th century, the Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus told of a debate he had – or so he said (its occurrence is in doubt) – with an unnamed Persian Muslim scholar. In the heat of the argument, the Emperor (according to himself) flung the following words at his adversary:
“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”.
These words give rise to three questions: (a) Why did the Emperor say them? (b) Are they true? (c) Why did the present Pope quote them?

WHEN MANUEL II wrote his treatise, he was the head of a dying empire. He assumed power in 1391, when only a few provinces of the once illustrious empire remained. These, too, were already under Turkish threat.
At that point in time, the Ottoman Turks had reached the banks of the Danube. They had conquered Bulgaria and the north of Greece, and had twice defeated relieving armies sent by Europe to save the Eastern Empire. On May 29, 1453, only a few years after Manuel’s death, his capital, Constantinople (the present Istanbul) fell to the Turks, putting an end to the Empire that had lasted for more than a thousand years.

During his reign, Manuel made the rounds of the capitals of Europe in an attempt to drum up support. He promised to reunite the church. There is no doubt that he wrote his religious treatise in order to incite the Christian countries against the Turks and convince them to start a new crusade. The aim was practical, theology was serving politics.

In this sense, the quote serves exactly the requirements of the present Emperor, George Bush II. He, too, wants to unite the Christian world against the mainly Muslim “Axis of Evil”. Moreover, the Turks are again knocking on the doors of Europe, this time peacefully. It is well known that the Pope supports the forces that object to the entry of Turkey into the European Union.

IS THERE any truth in Manuel’s argument?
The pope himself threw in a word of caution. As a serious and renowned theologian, he could not afford to falsify written texts. Therefore, he admitted that the Qur’an specifically forbade the spreading of the faith by force. He quoted the second Sura, verse 256 (strangely fallible, for a pope, he meant verse 257) which says: “There must be no coercion in matters of faith”.
How can one ignore such an unequivocal statement? The Pope simply argues that this commandment was laid down by the prophet when he was at the beginning of his career, still weak and powerless, but that later on he ordered the use of the sword in the service of the faith. Such an order does not exist in the Qur’an. True, Muhammad called for the use of the sword in his war against opposing tribes – Christian, Jewish and others – in Arabia, when he was building his state. But that was a political act, not a religious one; basically a fight for territory, not for the spreading of the faith.

Jesus said: “You will recognize them by their fruits.” The treatment of other religions by Islam must be judged by a simple test: How did the Muslim rulers behave for more than a thousand years, when they had the power to “spread the faith by the sword”?
Well, they just did not.

For many centuries, the Muslims ruled Greece. Did the Greeks become Muslims? Did anyone even try to Islamize them? On the contrary, Christian Greeks held the highest positions in the Ottoman administration. The Bulgarians, Serbs, Romanians, Hungarians and other European nations lived at one time or another under Ottoman rule and clung to their Christian faith. Nobody compelled them to become Muslims and all of them remained devoutly Christian.
True, the Albanians did convert to Islam, and so did the Bosniaks. But nobody argues that they did this under duress. They adopted Islam in order to become favorites of the government and enjoy the fruits.

In 1099, the Crusaders conquered Jerusalem and massacred its Muslim and Jewish inhabitants indiscriminately, in the name of the gentle Jesus. At that time, 400 years into the occupation of Palestine by the Muslims, Christians were still the majority in the country. Throughout this long period, no effort was made to impose Islam on them. Only after the expulsion of the Crusaders from the country, did the majority of the inhabitants start to adopt the Arabic language and the Muslim faith – and they were the forefathers of most of today’s Palestinians.

THERE IS no evidence whatsoever of any attempt to impose Islam on the Jews. As is well known, under Muslim rule the Jews of Spain enjoyed a bloom the like of which the Jews did not enjoy anywhere else until almost our time. Poets like Yehuda Halevy wrote in Arabic, as did the great Maimonides. In Muslim Spain, Jews were ministers, poets, scientists. In Muslim Toledo, Christian, Jewish and Muslim scholars worked together and translated the ancient Greek philosophical and scientific texts. That was, indeed, the Golden Age. How would this have been possible, had the Prophet decreed the “spreading of the faith by the sword”?

What happened afterwards is even more telling. When the Catholics re-conquered Spain from the Muslims, they instituted a reign of religious terror. The Jews and the Muslims were presented with a cruel choice: to become Christians, to be massacred or to leave. And where did the hundreds of thousand of Jews, who refused to abandon their faith, escape? Almost all of them were received with open arms in the Muslim countries. The Sephardi (“Spanish”) Je
ws settled all over the Muslim world, from Morocco in the west to Iraq in the east, from Bulgaria (then part of the Ottoman Empire) in the north to Sudan in the south. Nowhere were they persecuted. They knew nothing like the tortures of the Inquisition, the flames of the auto-da-fe, the pogroms, the terrible mass-expulsions that took place in almost all Christian countries, up to the Holocaust.

WHY? Because Islam expressly prohibited any persecution of the “peoples of the book”. In Islamic society, a special place was reserved for Jews and Christians. They did not enjoy completely equal rights, but almost. They had to pay a special poll-tax, but were exempted from military service – a trade-off that was quite welcome to many Jews. It has been said that Muslim rulers frowned upon any attempt to convert Jews to Islam even by gentle persuasion – because it entailed the loss of taxes.

Every honest Jew who knows the history of his people cannot but feel a deep sense of gratitude to Islam, which has protected the Jews for fifty generations, while the Christian world persecuted the Jews and tried many times “by the sword” to get them to abandon their faith.
THE STORY about “spreading the faith by the sword” is an evil legend, one of the myths that grew up in Europe during the great wars against the Muslims – the reconquista of Spain by the Christians, the Crusades and the repulsion of the Turks, who almost conquered Vienna. I suspect that the German Pope, too, honestly believes in these fables. That means that the leader of the Catholic world, who is a Christian theologian in his own right, did not make the effort to study the history of other religions.

Why did he utter these words in public? And why now?
There is no escape from viewing them against the background of the new Crusade of Bush and his evangelist supporters, with his slogans of “Islamofascism” and the “Global War on Terrorism” – when “terrorism” has become a synonym for Muslims. For Bush’s handlers, this is a cynical attempt to justify the domination of the world’s oil resources. Not for the first time in history, a religious robe is spread to cover the nakedness of economic interests; not for the first time, a robbers’ expedition becomes a Crusade.

The speech of the Pope blends into this effort. Who can foretell the dire consequences?
http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1159094813

Another Interesting Take from a Sister

Interesting Collection from Al Muhajabah’s blogs

Here is some good commentary on the issue. First are some columns by non-Muslim journalists and commentators:

Double Jack’s Standards, by Mike Marqusee
Jack Straw’s veil comments threaten to inflame racism, by Socialist Worker
What Not to Wear, by Vikram Dodd
It’s a New and Dangerous Game, by Ian Bell

Here are some comments from British Muslim bloggers:

Open Season on Muslims, by Indigo Jo
Muslims as Political Footballs, by Thabet
The Polite Guide to Demonizing Muslims, by Julaybib
Blaming the Veil is Wrong, by Rajnaara Akhtar
Incitement to Hatred, by Soumaya Ghannoushi

Some people noted the following news story: Veil Snatched from Muslim Woman. Hopefully this is completely unrelated.

P.S. There is a difference of opinion among Muslims about whether the niqab is obligatory or voluntary (I believe the latter). Even those who consider it to be obligatory allow women to remove their niqabs for the purpose of verifying their identity (1, 2). This includes business dealings, giving testimony, and appearing in court. It’s not clear whether this would cover professional dealings with an MP and in any case, Straw didn’t mention verifying identity. I’ve also written about legal issues relating to face veils and about understanding the face veil.

Trouble in Balouchistan

Reading about the Death of Nawab Akbar Bugti is really sad; he is most probably a shaheed. But will this solve the problems in Baluchistan or escalate them more now.

The world is not as black and white as the army would see it. Balouch have been taken advantage of for the last 50 years and they need their fair share of their wealth. These problems can never be solved with killings or Military actions but they are to be solved with negotiations and political solutions. I never doubt the sincerity of the Balouch Nationals or the military. They both want the problems solved but the way of achieving them is not the proper way.

First of all the people of the land should get their share, there is no doubt about it. We cannot abuse the actual inhabitants of the land. We do belong to the union and that union is good as long as all the members of the union are equal. Punjab is no more superior or any other province than any other province superior over Punjab. All are equal and deserve to gain from their lands.

Federal government and the military have been dealing with this situation in the wrong manner. They should just do the following and I think it would make things easier.

The share of the profits from Sui and all projects originating from Baluchistan should be given to Balouchs. This share should not discriminate among the Sardars or the people.

Schools, Hospitals, Universities and all the basic requirements of a decent life should be provided so these people can live with dignity.

The employment preferences and higher level positions are national projects operating in Baluchistan should be given to Balouchs.

Army should be removed from cities and should be less involved in these projects.

Remember to gain respect one has to give respect and that is what lacks in our policies towards our own people. No wonder they don’t want to stay with the union.

I guess these actions if taken should be able to reduce the friction between the parties.

Question for Pakistanis

Although i should make it clear that i dont support Mr. Sharif or Mohtarma or Musharraf but i just thought would ask this question to my fellow pakistanis in general.

Arent we tired of all the three above. Whoever supports mr Sharif, i can say he did some good but not all. I was in pakistan as a student and i support his actions for the Nuclear Testing, Motorway projects and stuff but do we forget what happened with Supereme Court Judges, Cheif of Election Comissioner, Importing luxary cars by cancelling duty for a day and then enforcing the duty back on, Qarz utaroo Mulk Sunwaroo money which pakistanis collected at his call, his political partners who were corrupt.

I can rant same kinda info about PPP or MQM or MMA or any political party. I just get amazed at people who want Bibi or sharif’s back in power, how do we forget so fast about what happened and the corruption these person’s government had. I see all those die hard party workers who want to die to their leader but they seem to forget that during their time also wrong was done.

I am not trying to create a provocation just an intellectual arguement about this issue. Help me understand that why Mr. Sharif/Bibi/Any one current in the political spectrum is good.

The last good govt in my lifetime was the interim govt under Mairaj Khalid which actually did work for pakistan although for a very short time.

So rather than trying to prove me wrong or anything please help me understand why anyone in the political spectrum, either they be Choudhry’s, Wadeeray, Generals, Sardars or any Fuedal be accepted as our leaders of pakistan when they are so distant from the actual pakistani person.

No offence meant, just want intellectual conversation.

The traitor Leaves

Flight Lieutenant M Matiur Rehman who waws the cause of the martyrdom of Rashid Minhas is finally going to his land. I am glad he is being moved to Bangladesh as there is no space for a traitor on pakistani land.

I dont have mix feelings about this person, he was a traitor to pakistan at the time of near war. He tried to do something which any pakistani would never do at any time. What happened to him was something that he deserved and am glad it happened to him. He also managed to introduce us to a true pakistani Hero, Rashid Minhas.

for bangalis he is a hero but for me he is a traitor who died while trying to betray his nation, he would have succeeded but Allah had another planfor him and he died like a disgraced traitor and for ever came to be known as a traitor in pakistani history..

It is good he will be moved to bangladesh and be buried. I just pray that he goes to hell for betraying muslims and pakistani, Rot in Hell Traitor.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4928268.stm

اردو ميں بلاگ

سوچا کھ آج ميں اردو ميں بلاگ لکھوں۔ ماکروسوفٹ کا يہ بہت فايدہ ھے کھ اردو ميں لکھنے کا موقع مل گيا۔ يہ ميں مانتا ھوں کہ اردو ميں لکھنا تھوڑا مشکل ہے۔ مگر يہ ايک اچھا طريقہ ہے سيکھنےکا۔ انشااللہ مستقبل ميں ميں اور زيادہ اردو بلاگنگ کروں گا۔

Nuclear Iran

Well I am not going to speculate about a nuclear Iran, It was definitely be a problem for Muslims (Sunni I mean) who dont like Iran. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan I am sure won’t be happy with that fact. Maybe they might even help USA some how covert to stop Tehran from getting closer to a full nuclear program. Shias in Pakistan are a minority and so are they in Saudi Arabia; A Nuclear Iran will help those minority get stronger.

Well I didn’t start the blog about this issue but as I was thinking of a possibility of an attack on Iran from USA, it will do a lot of opposite things that USA wouldn’t want. What am I talking about, well if GW decides to attack Iran that will result in the unthinkable i.e. Unite the Muslims.

Think about this, this will be the platform for Muslims, Sunni or Shia to come together to condemn USA. This will also bring them together to form anti US alliances in the Middle East which is exactly what the USA doesn’t want. So I guess Mr. Bush now you are at a cross roads, you have to protect Israel but can’t afford a united Muslim nations. The US policy and officials have to walk a very fine line on this issue. Israel and US strategic interests go way back and so does the distrust between Shia Sunnis. If the attack does happen, this will push Muslim to come together who won’t care if they are Shia or Sunni but their common ground will be hatred of US Policy.
Then it won’t be hard to imagine people like Zarqavi getting training and resources from Iran, they will open flood gates of problems for the Middle East rather than just USA.

Countries like Pakistan can get trouble and might not be a favorable please for a US friendly government. If Iran becomes hostile then Pakistan has to worry about unfriendly countries from most of its borders, they include Iran, India and Afghanistan. Currently internal problems in Pakistan are causing for them to rethink their policies, Balouch and NWFP problems and Army’s involvement is causing an ever deteriorating problem from getting stable to getting worse. In such scenarios Pakistan might not be able to handle another fiasco in the Middle East, i.e. Iran.

So I guess we can hope and pray that nothing like that happens. Inshallah :). But Bush will have to keep a cool mind and try to work with Iran.

Tragedy at Nishtar Park

What can i say about this. This is the highest level of incompetence at the government level and te agency levels. The right questions have been asked which are the amount of security provided, the amount of security present and the failure of provincial govt.

The questions arise about who could have done such an act. There will be alot of answers. It is clearly an attempt to spark a sectarian level violence between Shias and sunnis. but in my opinion i think it was an attempt by some govt or provincial govt level agency to make a point. they did succeed in killing soo many Sunni Leaders.

Did MQM gain from it or
Did India do this in response to recent attacks on their religious establishments.
Did shias actually do it.

What amazes me is the courage of Mr. Nawaz Sharif to use this horrific event for his political advantage. ?He used this event to call for the removal of the current government. This amazes me and pisses me off also. Mr Sharif if you cant make people feel better then make their life miserable. Use some other time to call for the govt’s removal. How many bombings were you able to stop.

we might not know or never know as the identity ofsuicide bombers is really hard to find, same is the case in the Embassy Bombing in khi recently and imam bar gah bombing in the past. but whatever happened didnt happen right and i pray to allah we find the people behind it, either they are in power or feorign powers, I hope they are brought to justice. Inshallah

Beard in Islamic Republic of Pakistan's Armed Forces

I just read an article online on BBC urdu Ofcourse. it is amazing to see this kinda crap happening in pakistan.

they fired an Airforce Officer for giving out Quran with urdu trans, they ground Airforce pilots for having beards, They fire people for things like this?? What kind of Armed forces we want, the ones who fight for secularism or for Islam for which pakistan was created.

They had an interesting take on it saying that Pilots cannot fly with beards due to requirements for a mask with oxygen but the pilots in question were trained in usa and they had gotten no objection in USA for anything like that but in pakistan it seems we are trying to eliminate the essence of pakistan from the armed forces which is Islam. We should remember if we go on a path like this then we have no right to call Army personnel Shaheed or Ghazi as they are islamic terms and Allah’s help comes to those who defend his religion not make a mockery of it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/pakistan/story/2006/04/060410_military_beard.shtml

« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2025 Desi Thoughts

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑