سيف محمد
الكاتب :يوري افنري
26 سبتمبر 2006 من موقع Global Research, www.globalresearch.ca/
مننذ الايام التي كان فيها الامبراطور الروماني يلقي بالمسيحيين للاسود والعلاقة بين الامبراطور و رئيس الكنيسة اصابها الكثير من المتغيرات.
الكنيسة انقسمت الى الكنيسة الشرقية(اورثوذوكس) و الكنيسة الغربية( الكاثوليك)
في الغرب حبر الكنيسة الرومانية(الكاثوليكية) الذي لقب بالبابا الذي كان يصر على ان يتقبل الامبراطور علومكانته عليه.
المعركة بين الامبراطور والبابا شكلت الكثير في التاريخ الاوروبي كما ساهمت في تقسيم الناس. بعض الاباطرة لفظوا البابا واهملوه، كما ان بعض البابوات لفظوا الاباطرة., وحرموهم كنسيا, ويذكر في التاريخ كيف ان هنري الرابع وقف امام قلعة البابا حافي القدمين في الثلج مدة ثلاثة ايام حتى قرر البابا ان يبطل قرار الحرمان الكنسي..
لكن هناك اوقات يتعايش البابا والامبراطور مع بعضهما بسلام ونعيش نحن هذه الحقبة الآن البابا بندكت السادس عشر والامبراطور الحالي بوش الثاني بينهما الكثير من الانسجام.حيث كانت تصريحات البابا الاخيرة متماشية بصورة رائعة مع الحملة الصليبية بقيادة بوش الثاني ضد الفاشية الاسلامية في اطار صراع الحضارات.
في محاضرة البابا رقم 265 في الجامعة الالمانية كان يشرح ما اسماه الفرق الكبير بين المسيحية و الاسلام. حيث قال ان المسيحية مبنية على العقلانية والسببية بينما الاسلام يتجاهل ذلك كما ان المسيحية ترى الحكمة في اعمال الله فان المسلم ينكر اي منطق في افعال الرب.
بالنسبة الي و انا يهودي ملحد لايوجد لدي النية في ان ابحث هذه الجدلية. وان كان كلام البابا يتخطى قدرتي على فهم منطقه.الا انني لا أستطيع ان اتجاوز رسالته فهي تعنيني كاسرائيلي يعيش على الجانب الخاطئ في ما يسمى بحرب الحضارات.
في تأكيد منطقه في غياب العقلانية في الاسلام ادعى ان محمدا امر اتباعه الى نشر الاسلام بالسيف. كيف يولد الايمان من الجسد؟ الايمان لاينبع الا من الروح. كيف ينشر السيف الايمان كيف يؤثر السيف في الروح؟.
ولكي يؤكد على كلامه اقتبس كلام الامبراطور مانويل الثاني الذي قال ان كل ما جاء به محمد هو شر و شيطاني ولا انساني وانه دعا الى نشر الايمان بالسيف.
هذه الكلمات تؤدي الى ثلاثة اسئلة لماذا قال هذا الامبراطور هذا الكلام ؟ وهل هذه كلمات حقيقية؟ ولماذا البابا الحالي اقتبس هذه الكلمات؟.
عندما صاغ هذا الامبراطور هذه العبارة كان على راس امبراطورية تحتضر تحت الخطر التركي الذي استطاع الوصول الى الدانوب و اخذ بلغاريا وشمال اليونان وفي عام 1453 اي بعد وفاة مانويل بسنوات قليلة سقطت القسطنطينية (استانبول حاليا) عاصمة امبراطورية دامت ألف عام.
كان الامبراطور يحاول بكلماته حث ملوك اوروبا واستثارة حميتهم الدينية بان يقوموا بشن حرب صليبية جديدة ضد الاتراك واعدا اياهم بتوحيد الكنيسة. الهدف كان سياسيا (الدين في خدمة السياسة).
من هذا المنطلق هذه الكلمات تستخدم حاليا لتوحيد العالم المسيحي ضد المسلمين (محور الشر). الاتراك مازالوا يدقون ابواب اوروبا هذه المرة سلميا (تسعى تركيا للانضمام الى الاتحاد الاوربي) من المعلوم ان البابا يعارض انضمام تركيا الى الاتحاد الاوروبي.
هل كلمات مانويل حقيقية؟
حتى البابا نفسه في اقتباسه لهذه الكلمات قالها بحذرفهو لا يستطيع ان ينكر ما هو مقررومشهور ومكتوب في القرآن نفسه من رفض الاكراه في العقيدة وقد اقتبس البابا بنفسه الاية التي في السورة الثانية من القرآن التي تقول لا اكراه في الدين
كيف يستطيع المرء ان يتعامل مع هاتين العبارتين المتعارضتين البابا اوجد حلا عجيبا اذ قال ان هذا كان عندما كان محمد ضعيفا بلا قوة اما عندما اصبح قويا استعمل السيف لنشر الايمان
في الحقيقة ان محمدا استعمل السيف في حروبه مع اعدائه من يهود ومشركين و مسيحيين و غيرهم عند تكوين دولته الا ان هذا كان عملا سياسيا و ليس دينيا.
المسيح يقول:تعرفوا على الناس من ثمراتهم. نستطيع ان نعلم كيف تعامل الاسلام مع مختلف الاديان من خلال اختبار بسيط :كيف تعامل الحكام المسلمون مع اهل الاديان المختلفة لاكثر من الف عام عندما كان لديهم المقدرة و القوة على نشر الايمان بالسيف؟
في الحقيقة انهم لم يستعملوه.
لقد حكم المسلمون اليونان فهل اصبح اليونانيون مسلمين هل حاول احدهم اسلمتهم على العكس لقد تبوأ المسيحيون اليونانيون مراكز عليا في تركيا العثمانية. الصرب والبلغار وغيرهم من الدول الاوربية التي كانت تحت الحكم العثماني ظلت مسيحية نعم الالبان و البوسنيون أصبحوا مسلمين ولكن هذا كان خيارهم و ليس بالاكراه.
في عام 1099 الصليبيون اجتاحوا القدس و ذبحوا المسلمين و اليهود المقيمين فيها دون تمييز باسم المسيح الطيب الرقيق. في هذا الوقت اي بعد 400 عام من حكم القدس من قبل المسلمين كان المسيحيون في القدس اكثرية طوال هذه الفترة الطويلة لم يقهرهم احد على التحول للاسلام. فقط بعد انتهاء هذه الحروب الصليبية تحول المسيحيون الفلسطينيون الى الاسلام طوعا وتكلموا العربية وهم اجداد الفلسطينيين المسلمين الحاليين.
كما انه لا يوجد اي دليل على اي محاولة مورست ضد يهودي لتحويله للاسلام. وكما هو معروف جدا لقد تمتع اليهود بالعيش تحت حكم المسلمين في الاندلس كما لم يتمتعوا في اي مكان حتى وقتنا الحالي. في اسبانيا المسلمة كان اليهود سفراء ووزراء و شعراءو علماء. في اسبانيا المسلمة عمل العلماء اليهود والمسيحيون والمسلمون معا على ترجمة الفلسفة الاغريقية و اليونانية والمخطوطات العلمية. لقد كان بحق عصرا ذهبيا.كيف كان هذا ليكون لو كان محمد امر بنشر الاسلام بالسيف.
ولنتعرف على ما حدث بعد ذلك عندما استولى الكاثوليك على اسبانيا لقد عملوا ارهابا دينيا كان اليهود والمسلمون امامهم خيار بشع اما ان يصبحوا مسيحيين او يذبحوا او يهجروا. مئات الالوف من اليهود الذين رفضوا التخلي عن عقيدتهم تلقتهم الدول الاسلامية باذرع مفتوحة من المغرب غربا الى العراق شرقا و من بلغاريا شمالا (كانت جزءا من الامبراطورية العثمانية) الى السودان جنوبا
لم يحدث لهم ما فعلته بهم الدول الاوربية المسيحية بدءا من التطهير العرقي والطرد الجماعي و انتهاء بالهولوكست(المحرقة).
لماذا لان الاسلام يحرم اضطهاد اهل الكتاب و يجعل لهم مكانة خاصة فقد كانوا يدفعون ضريبة مالية مقابل اعفائهم من الخدمة العسكرية و كان هذا امرا مرحبا به جدا من قبل اليهود.
ان اي يهودي امين لا يستطيع الا ان يشعر بالعرفان و التقدير للاسلام و اهله الذين حموا خمسين جيلا من اليهود في الوقت الذي كان فيه العالم المسيحي يضطهد اليهود ويحاول تغيير عقيدتهم بالسيف .
هذه المقولة الشريرة عن انتشار الاسلام بالسيف لا تروج الا اثناء الحروب الكبرى ضد المسلمين في اوروبا وان البابا الحالي رغم انه عالم ديني يبدو انه لم يبذل اي جهد لدراسة تاريخ الاديان الاخرى.
لماذا في خطاب عام كانت كلمات البابا؟ ولماذا الآن؟.
لا يمكن ان تخرج هذه الكلمات عن سياق الحرب الصليبية الجديدة بقيادة بوش ومن يساندونه من المبشرين الانجليين. في اعلان الحرب على الفاشية الاسلامية والحرب الكونية على الارهاب عندما اصبح الارهاب مرادفا للاسلام.بالنسبة لبوش كان هذا كافيا ليخفي الحقيقة العارية بانه يريد السيطرة على منابع النفط. ليست اول مرة في التاريخ التي يستخدم فيها الغطاء الديني لاخفاء النهم الاقتصادي.ليست اول مرة حملة القراصنة تصبح حملة صليبية.
ترجمة :نهى أبوكريشة اكتوبر 2006
النسخة الانجليزية: Muhammad's Sword
Why did Pope Benedict utter these words in public? And why now?
by Uri Avnery
Global Research, September 26, 2006
Gush shalom
Email this article to a friend
Print this article
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 con**** 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. In 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 ****s. 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 ****s. 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?
Global Research Articles by Uri Avnery
________________________________________
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization.
To become a Member of Global Research
The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the **** & title are not modified. The source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: mailto:crgeditor@yahoo.com
http://www.globalresearch.ca/www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.
For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com
© Copyright Uri Avnery, Gush shalom, 2006
The url address of this article is: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...articleId=3338
________________________________________
Privacy Policy
© Copyright 2005-2007 GlobalResearch.ca
Web site engine by Polygraphx Multimedia © Copyright 2005-2007
