Originally posted by: AnitaPetersonWell, unless you're totally blind, deaf and illiterate, no matter where you live in the world, you would at least see that there is a strong public opposition to any government that does the aforementioned things, and the Western democratic system of debate and representation will eventually put an end to such governments.
When Sadat tried to use realpolitik and rationalism in the Arab/Muslim world, all he got was a hail of bullets. When Rushdie tried to use culture (literature) to question religious dogma, he almost got the same treatment. Notice a pattern here?
Riiiight. Look at what type of government that we keep moving towards~ and over history government has been getting more and more authoritarian and controlling.
Sadat, according to one of my Eygption friend's whose dad actually has a senior position back in the military at the time, was a smart thinker who understood that at some points you had to step back before you could move foreward. If Israel was to be dealt with militarily and diplomatically, you had to reorganize first to gain power other than attack randomly. Other than that though, the man was double faced who said what each party (America, Europe, or other Arab Coutnries) wanted to hear and its funny to sometimes watch absolutely contradicting statements. But he was there where others weren't. So maybe to you it was rationalism, but to him he was simply biding his time.
And Rushdie is so overplayed
A large part of this was also pushed by Khomeini for potentially politicial reasons~ He comes out of a war which results in a stalement but tens of billions spent on each side with over 1 million dead and 3 steps backwards after the promise of the "revolution"...add to the fact that you are about to die soon; calling a "fatwa" is aimed totally to distract the situation at hand and what actually occured.
Notice how in these situations: Rushdie and even the "Mohammed Cartoons" they are government or people deflecting blame at what happened by taking advantage of the uneducated masses. Islam's fault? You can't be serious.
And I'll echo that opinion by Rainsford in that it seems like some here
WANT holy war. Most Muslims aren't out to "Git ya" "kill ya" "convert ya" (thats right
After we kill you, we will attempt to convert you). Those who are can be for a variety of reasons: they can TRY to use the Quran to justify their actions, and the sad part is they are sucessful because now we think it is
Islam that is the fault for what is going on rather than
the people themselves who are twisted
For the Pope...I believe it is out of line. As a Pope, I would think that beyond being an absolute expert in Christianity, he needs to know about other religions as well. And for Islam he should understand the basic concepts: Jihad is NOT an offensive war aimed at getting more Converts. It doesn't matter how much you wish to believe it, but read it in the Quran and there is never a description of offensive attack in order to spread the religion described as "Jihad". This is a myth created by those who have a clear bias against Islam in order to spread lies.
Of course he was only quoting an emporer from the past: not the person I'd look for the most "englightened" comments, but this is what I've been able to find:
http://www.thetranscript.com/world/ci_4330400
Citing historic Christian commentary on holy war and forced conversion, the 79-year-old pontiff quoted from a 14th-century Byzantine emperor, Manuel II Paleologos.
"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."'
Clearly aware of the sensitivity of the issue, Benedict added, "I quote," twice before pronouncing the phrases on Islam and described them as "brusque," while neither explicitly agreeing with nor repudiating them.
"The emperor goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable," Benedict said. "Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul," the pope said, issuing an open invitation to dialogue among cultures.
Vatican spokesman the Rev. Federico Lombardi, said the pope was not giving an interpretation of Islam as "something violent," though he said the religion contains both violent and nonviolent strains.
Benedict did not touch directly on the current controversy over Islamic extremism, although it is an issue he follows with concern. Last year in Cologne, Germany, he urged Islamic leaders to take responsibility for their communities and teach their young to abhor violence.
So he called them "brusque"...there is one problem though: with sensitive inter religious issues like as these its best not to be subtle but to be explicit. Then again...if he knew the concepts he would have known that you can't spread faith in violence anyways with Islam.
In all seriousness--> unless you kill everyone and control them for hundreds of years you can't force them to believe in something. I still have friends that go to thePhillipines on a yearly basis to convert and bring back Filipinos to Christianity despite the fact that the Pope and Spain had a field day with the population there.
Facebook
Twitter