Friday, September 15, 2006

As If We Needed Another Reason to Hate Islam

The Pope has been blasted for speaking the truth – or, in fact, only quoting the truth spoken by someone else over six hundred years ago. The Pope did mention he was not speaking his own words but quoting Emperor Manual II Paleologos of the Byzantine Empire, who said:

"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."

Of course world Muslimry (not a real word but I like it) is as outraged as a Jew on Christmas morning because of the Pope’s statement. The chorus begins: HALAH ACKBA ABBA MECH MA, or whatever the hell their babble is supposed to be saying. Generally, the babble translates to: Islam is a religion of love, the Pope doesn’t understand Islam, Islam is a religion of peace, Christians are responsible for persecuting peace-loving Muslims during the Crusades, we will kill the Pope and eat his foreskin on a kebob if he doesn’t say what we want him to say, and so on.

Of course, Western people are so damned stupid and cowardly nowadays they may just believe what these lying Muslim retards have to say.

After all, the liberal Western pansies will say, what about the Crusades? As usual, I am left saying: So, what about them?

Pansy: Didn’t Christians kill Muslims and try and conquer the Muslim lands?
Me: Yes, but what of it?

Pansy: Well, conquering and killing is bad, and Christians shouldn’t have done that.
Me: So when Islamic peoples conquered Palestine in 636, conquered Christian Egypt and North Africa by 698, conquered Christian Spain by 718, invaded Christian France in 732, attacked Rome in 844, invaded Hindu India in 1030, conquered Christian Byzantium in 1453 and turned one of the largest churches in the world into a mosque, invaded the Balkans and reached the gates of Vienna 1529, what was that supposed to be, make-believe?

Pansy: Well, that was bad too, but Christians should have known better.
Me: Ah, which implies that Muslims are of a violent, inferior religion of militant psychos, right?

Pansy: No! No! I mean, two wrongs don’t make a right.
Me: But you don’t expect Christians to behave any differently than Muslims in an epic contest of religions, since you just said Christians aren’t any better than Muslims, and Islam is just like Christianity in its values, right?

Pansy: Well…yeah…I guess so.
Me: Then why the hell do you think the Crusades make Christians more guilty than the violent conquests perpetrated by Islam make the Muslims guilty?

Pansy: Well, they don’t. But Christians shouldn’t say that Islam is evil, since Christianity has done evil things too.
Me: I can conceptualize a continuum of evil, which is to say, accept that some deeds are worse than others. In this case, the Muslims aggressively attempted to conquer Christian lands for a thousand years while the Christians were still weak and emerging from the Dark Ages after the Fall of Rome. Once the Christians became a predominant culture and could take the fight back to Islam, they did so with gusto. The practical need for safety and prosperity in one’s own land may have led the Christians to respond to Muslim aggression with equivalent aggression (Crusades, Spanish Reconquesta, Mediteranean Trade Wars, and Balkan Revolutions against the Ottomans to name a few) but taking the fight into solely Muslim lands was a product of 19th State-Sponsored Imperialism and 20th century Corporate Warfare, not religious fervor.

It is too easy to criticize Christians for the Crusades against Islam by forgetting that the Crusades were reactive in nature. The true history of Christian violence came from conquest of Pagan peoples both in Europe in and areas of European colonial expansion. Islam shares this predilection for aggression against Pagans, considering it was necessary to conquer pagan Mecca just to get the religion going in the first place!

From examination of the Pope’s address in Regensburg, which started all this nonsense, one would come to the conclusion that the Pope was talking about the compatibility of reason and faith. In his address, the Pope used several quotes from a discussion between Emperor Manual II Paleologos and “an educated Persian”. The Emperor questioned the reasonableness of the use of violence to spread religion, while the Muslim simply asserted that it didn’t matter how conversion was achieved, God would let happen what He wanted to let happen. Here is the relevant text:

In the seventh conversation (*4V8,>4H - controversy) edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion". According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur'an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "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". The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably (F×< 8`(T) is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...".

The Pope rejected the use of violence to compel conversion as unreasonable, thus agreeing with the Emperor:

The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature

You may read the rest of the Pope’s lecture HERE.

It would be nice if global media would read the lecture as well, before condemning the Pope’s statements. Quashing freedom of speech is the raison d’etre of all political and social movements in existence today. I would have no connection to the racist movement if it hadn’t been for such a trend.

No comments:

Post a Comment