[lbo-talk] Muhammad's Sword: HATS OFF TO GUSH SHALOM

EverYoung Global Intellectual Enterprises uttarbahini at enet.com.np
Mon Sep 25 06:24:30 PDT 2006


Muhammad's Sword

Uri Avnery

23.9.06

<http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en>

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?

GUSH SHALOM p.o.b. 3322 Tel Aviv 61033

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

___________________________________

http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk

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

No virus found in this incoming message.

Checked by AVG Free Edition.

Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.8/455 - Release Date: 9/22/2006 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20060925/a5930f2f/attachment.htm>



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list