The Pope's comments, Islam and its propagation

Below is an article written by a secular Jew. I received via e-mail. It was written as a response to the Pope's comments about Islam and Prophet Mohammad. I think it was wonderfully written very objective and to the point.

Before I get to the article, I have a few comments to make. I have written a response to a secular Iraqi regarding this accusation about Islam before. I posted my response in this blog on March 26th . Please note though that the post is in Arabic.

I think this article is more comprehensive, better written and coming from a Jewish person has a lot more impact and provides more objectivity.

Another comment I would like to make is again shamefully Muslims instead of doing anything remotely as good they resorted to their usual nonsense of condemnation.


Finally, to the Secular Arabs and other people who have leased their brains to the enemies of Islam and allowed them to fill those brains with false facts. Especially those who keep on uttering that Islam was a religion forced by the edge of the sword I say this:

There is nothing wrong with having an opinion. Only fools have opinions unverified, unthought of, and bised.


Now here is the article ... Enjoy:

Muhammad's Sword

by Uri Avnery

Saturday September 23 2006

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"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."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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") Jews 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?

Religion

I just finished watching a show on the CBC called The Big Picture. It was very interesting to say the least. The guests panel consistent of many people with diverse views or as the Host put it "I think it will be electrifying to see what a big crowd of people – spanning the spectrum from atheists to moderates to people of intense religious faith". The program started of with one topic and quickly jumped to another and then another and so on. Two points are of interest to me namely: Religious faith, and the Existance of God versus Evolution. Since it is late at night and I am tired I will just say a few comments about some memberes of the panel and then give my two cents on it. I shall leave the other topic for another post and possibly more.

Special Guests to the program were:

Richard Dawkins, Evolutionary biologist, Oxford University and Author of The God Delusion
Ronald de Sousa, Emeritus Professor, University of Toronto, Philosophy Department, Atheist extraordinaire
Cheri DiNovo, Reverend, Emmanuel-Howard Park United Church
Charles McVety, President, Canada Christian College
Imam Aly Hindy, Salaheddin Islamic Centre
Alia Hogben, Executive Director, Canadian Council of Muslim Women, Led the fight against bringing Sharia Law to Ontario
Joseph Ben-Ami, Executive Director, Institute for Canadian Values (faith based public policy think tank)
Anver Emon, Islamic law historian, University of Toronto's Faculty of Law, Specializes in Religious Fundamentalism

Out of which Three stood out to be the most ignorent and least tolerant. One of which was smart enough not to say much "Ben-Ami" ; while Aly Hindy luckily doesn't speak English well and thank God for that. Otherwise he would have made a complete fool of himself and put a silver bullet right through the heart of Islam in case people like Bin Laden haven't done so already. Last but definitly not least was McVety, and Evangelical Christian with a mouth acting as his worst enemy. Why are people of faith so closed minded? So intolerant and illogical?

I know for sure the Quran doesn't condone that! One need only count how many times God questions us "Do you not think? Do you not comprehend?"

Most religious people are their own worst enemies. I know that most Muslims are my owm worst enemies and my worst fear. It is worth noting that since the war in Iraq ended and Bush declared victory it was Muslims (or people who call themselves as such) have killed more Iraqis that Americans have.

Afala ta'qiloon? "Do you not dare think?"

Al-Hijab (The head scarf in Quran)

Note: This post has been revised in a later post here. To get the bigger pictures one might want to read this one first, and then the revision.

I think the most common error people make when interpreting the Quran is not paying attention to context. Taking one ayah out of context could easily render the interpretation false. The most obvious example for this is in soorat al-ma'oon (107)
Ayah number 4 God says" Fa Waylon lil mossaleen" "فويل للمصلين " [ Woe to those who worship/pray ] . This ayah taken out of context simply means be careful not to pray. One would think that God doesn't like those who pray. Which we know contradicts many other versus in the Quran stressing the importance of praying. But if we put this back in context the meaning becomes more sensible and in accordance with the rest of the book. I will talk more about context in another post.

Let us get back to the topic at hand. The Hijab or head scarf in particular. As I know there are three main verses which traditional Muslim scholars use to argue that Hijab is obligated by God. One is in soorat al Noor (24) Ayah/verse 31. The other two are in Soorat Al-Ahzaab. The first one is Ayah/verse 33 which specifically talks to the Prophets wives, and the second one is Ayah/verse 59.

I shall discuss Ayah 31 of soorat Al-Noor first and quickly. The English translation according to www.al-islam.com is :

[31] And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands.

For this arguments purpose I shall not get into details about the English translation, but the text in question is highlighted above. God only commands women to hide their bosom or Chest area. The word in Arabic used was Jaib. Jaib is commonly referred to nowadays as the pocket. Which I believe was still the name for pockets back in the old days. Only pockets were commonly placed in the chest area versus the pants or jacket for example. The argument to support this claim is the Quran itself uses the word Jaib in two other versus. Both referring to Moses (PBUH) and one of the Miracles God taught him when he was sent to the pharaoh. God asked Moses (PBUH) to insert his hand into his pocket (which the Bible refers to as the chest area as well) and then take it out to perform the Miracle.

Therefore this Ayah (31:24) clearly is asking Muslim women to cover their bosoms and not referring to covering the hair.

Now as to Ayah 33 in Soorat/Chapter Al-Ahzaab clearly is referring to the Prophets wives only. Proof of that is stated in the verse just before it when God says: " يانساء النبي لستن كأحدٍ من النساء" "Oh women of the prophet , ye are not like any other women." Therefore, these versus clearly cannot be used as an argument to tell other women what they should or should not do.

Finally Ayah 59 of soorat Al-Ahzaab, which probably both traditional scholars and I both agree to be the Ayah were Hijab is most clearly stated in. However, below you will find a point of view not many people talk about. It had occurred to me while reading the Quran and trying to understand it. I think most Muslims have a bad habit with reading the Quran in passing. Not really trying to figure out the message. They simply rely on what old school of thought (or ignorance) tells them.

Little do they know that when God is judging us, they will bare responsibility for their actions and not the scholars. As the Quran clearly states in so many places.

Back to the point of view I mentioned. Let us look at the context of this Ayah and in fact the whole Soorah. This Soorah is clearly Madaniyah ( Revealed in Madinah). The title means the parties or Allies. This is a well known battle that Muslims were attacked by Quraish and other Allies in Madinah. It also talks about the Jews of Banu- Qaynuqaa and their betrayal of the treaty. It talks about the Monafiqoon (hypocrites) whom were hiding their disbelief. It also talks about some social aspects in Madinah. Moreover, there are some versus specifically talking to the Prophet PBUH.

Then we come to the versus in question. Namely, 57, 58, 59, and 60. All are displayed in the figure on the right of this text.

We begin with Ayah 57 which serves as a transition between talking about the Prophet PBUH to talking about those who hurt the believers. Which brings us to ayah 58 loosely translates into : "And those who hurt the believers unjustly will bear responsibility for their actions and sins" " ".
Finally Ayah 59
" يَا أَيُّهَا النَّبِيُّ قُلْ لأَزْوَاجِكَ وَبَنَاتِكَ وَنِسَاءِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ يُدْنِينَ عَلَيْهِنَّ مِنْ جَلابِيبِهِنَّ ذَلِكَ أَدْنَى أَنْ يُعْرَفْنَ فَلا يُؤْذَيْنَ وَكَانَ اللَّهُ غَفُورًا رَحِيمًا " "Oh Prophet instruct your wives, daughters and women believers to cover themselves up with their outer garments so that they shall not be known and thus hurt, and God is Forgiving and Merciful" . Here we note the words so that they shall not be known (identified) and thus hurt. Therefore, God has stated a reason for the cover. Further investigation and pondering of this Ayah reveals the meaning well. I was puzzled when I read this Ayah at first. I thought: OK if all women covered up they will not be identifiable however, won't those who wish to hurt them still know that they are Muslims? It then becomes apparent that for the Muslim women not to be harassed they need to blend in. They need to dress up like other women and therefore not be subject to harassment. How was that possible? It is simple, they would dress like other women in Madinah namely like Jewish women. If one examines the Jewish women's dress code historically and in modern times. It is easy to see that specifically from portraits of Mary the mother of Jesus and other women from her time. Therefore, wearing like other Jewish women in Madinah would help Muslim women blend in and therefore not be subject to harassment.

In conclusion, this means that once Muslim women live in their own society where Muslims are the majority there will no longer be a need for them to cover up their hair. It is a practice that God commanded and has given us the reason. Now that the reason has passed I see no point in covering the hair. Of course if women wish to cover up let them feel free to do so. It is their prerogative. However, this comes to the matter where Muslim women live in the west. Especially in the post 9/11 world. If a Muslim woman feels threat or harassment for wearing a veil and being a Muslim then this is going against the logic behind Ayah 59. God clearly makes protecting women from harm the priority. Therefore, in my opinion women should try to blend in. Of course not bearing skin, showing their bosoms and wearing provocative clothes. As long as it doesn't go against the other commands from God in other versus.

This of course is my humble opinion and I would love to hear some comments.