Pope on the Ropes!
Couldn't really be arsed with what the pope actually said, fairenough he was quoting some 14th century whoever you know, but yes it was a bit irresponsible to bring it up in the present climate.
The fact that 'Islam was spread by the sword' is pretty much bollocks to me and would be to any student of history. Yes, there was bloodshed, as there have been in other religions including Christianity (the crusaders weren't greeted with roses you know!). Islam also spread without any bloodshed to a lot of other parts of the world. No battles were fought in Eastern Africa, Malaysia, Indonesia etc where there are huge muslim populations. India was ruled for nearly a thousand years by muslims and still has 80% hindu majority - no forced conversions there, etc. The Mongols, when they conquered muslim lands, actually took up the new faith.
The fact that 'Islam was spread by the sword' is pretty much bollocks to me and would be to any student of history. Yes, there was bloodshed, as there have been in other religions including Christianity (the crusaders weren't greeted with roses you know!). Islam also spread without any bloodshed to a lot of other parts of the world. No battles were fought in Eastern Africa, Malaysia, Indonesia etc where there are huge muslim populations. India was ruled for nearly a thousand years by muslims and still has 80% hindu majority - no forced conversions there, etc. The Mongols, when they conquered muslim lands, actually took up the new faith.
As for the comments itself, its interesting how the media has fuelled the reaction in the muslim world by only highlighting a certain quote from the speech. A few mad mullah's haven't helped. Protests on the streets is tradition in South Asian countries, they burn effigies of their cricket players when they lose so this shouldn't really be a surprise. Its part of the culture.
I believe a dignified, peaceful response would've been ideal and the pope shouldve been asked to clarify or apologise for his remarks. If he does, fair enough move on. If he doesn't, there's no need for any violent protests, prove that you're bigger than that and move on.
Cunts who protest and carry violent banners need to look into the teachings of the Prophet and ask themselves, is this how he would've reacted? There was a case of a pagan once taking a p*ss inside the Prophet's mosque in Medina. The prophet's companions drew their swords but he stopped them, let the man go telling him it aint a very nice thing to do, got a bucket of water and cleaned up. If it were upto these c**ts we see protesting in the streets today, they would've beheaded the fella and hung his body on a tree or something while having the kids play football with his severed head.
So this is what it looks like at the moment.
- Pope says muslims are violent
- Muslims threaten to kill pope
- Pope says he's sorry
For me, the pope's comments weren't as harmful as the reaction to them (by the muslims) is, for the muslim world.
Rant over. Have a good day.
posted by Dirty Dan at 7:16 PM
7 Comments:
Was waiting to see if you would blog on this :)
Good rant/read, however, all this fuss is made over the current Pope QUOTING another Pope from years past during an ACADEMIC seminar (something the current Pope did/does a lot of). As for why he'd mention it now - well it is a current issue right now (the muslim faith - and how that may/or may not be linked with the terrorist activities going on around the world.)
As for what the Pope really believes, who knows, but if he can't quote someone without riddiculous outcrys and death threats, then one can only come to the conclusion that the Pope (who first made the comment all those centuries ago) was right - at least in regard to those calling for the head of the current Pope.
Does it also mean that these nutters will give death threats to newspapers that quote the Pope quoting the the other Pope!!!?
One last thing though, I wish people (including, it would seem, you too Dan) would put it in historical context and remember that the Crusades were a reaction to an invadion of what was then a Christian region - not an attempt to spead Christianity by force. The Spanish Inquisition would be a better argument to make than that.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
One small correction. Islam in India was - SPREAD BY THE SWORD - YES!!! May be not 100% of the spreading of Islam in India was by sword, but most - say 90% was by sword. Starting with the Slave Dynasty rulers, through the Mughals - mainly Aurangazeb...you may kindly refer to any source on the internet, incl. Wikipedia. There were great benevolent rlers who were better than many Hindu rulers - like Akbar the Great - who also ruled India (he was a real GREAT ruler I agree), but sadly he was but an exception. Read about the plundering of Delhi and killing of its populace by the Persian bloodhound Nadir Shah..and more!!! Well, I am not arguing with you or screaming, but just wanted to clear up some facts - FACTS and not rhetoric. You may kindly read for yourself on the internet (e.g. Wikipedia..and if you do not trust Wikipedia, then any other source which I do not want to name as then there would be a claim that I am citing only favourable sources).
True Islam's spread was not 100% by sword, but most of it - MOST of it...was by sword. And it is a sad truth. All are welcome to correct me where I am wrong. Thanx for ur time and attention.
Cheers,
Bhuvan
well said dan.
I completely agree with every word u just said. and it is true. especially the the point where 'south asians' protest about just ANYTHING.
and then due to the extensive media attention generalizations are formed, and they =by default- represent the entire muslim population. which is so not true!
i do not agree with the above comment. spreading islam by the sword was the last resort, after exhausting all other means.
it is sad that in todays times, some people have taken only to the sword as a way of life, and not bothered to find out the who/why/when/where of using the sword.
those muslims are taking the piss now...don't they have anything else better to do? Talk about a self-fulfilling prophecy...
@deadbeat
fuck yourself and die
In the indian sub-continent Islam was spread by the sword in Aurangzaib's time because he was a crazy fuck.
Whenever this dude got bored he went of and robbed a temple when all Muslims know that we are not supposed to do so
and in the current those god damn mullahs do help. Chanting crazy things and burning effigies.
All things given, no one has the right to say anything about our Prophet(PBUH) even if he/she is quoting something written or said by another.
By anychance did any of you catch Dateline London on BBC day before yesterday?
Anon: Well said. I hope this doesn't escalate any further and thankfully there are positive signs this time around. Majority of the ordinary muslims don't seem to be too bothered by this and quite rightly so. Its such a non-issue that it aint even funny.
Bhuvan:
Thanks for your contribution even though I dont agree with your point that MOST of islam was spread through violence.
yes, there was bloodshed in SOME parts of India (and its a huge country with a huge population), however I'm sure if you read the history of your country you'll find that more often than not, the wars were for land or monetary reasons, and NOT to further the cause of Islam. If that was the case, surely we'd see more than a 15-20% muslim population after a period of over a thousand years?
Majority of muslim populations today are in countries which saw very little violence, if any, in the name of Islam.
Post a Comment
<< Home