From: bv8bv8bv8@gmail.com   
      
   Muhammad's Sword   
      
      
   Description: A Jewish atheist speaks about the notion that Islam spread by the   
   sword.   
      
   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 Quran 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 Quran.  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.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)