How can the muslims expect to have a religious dialogue?

Question

when they attack everyone having a different opinion about islam than them, violent demonstrations or fatwa. How can anyone debate without criticism. I'm a hindu but there was nothing wrong in what the pope quoted from the byzantine emperor. These things about using swords are mentioned in the quran but all hell breaks lose if anyone discusses them. No muslim can become atheist or convert to another religion coz he's threatened with death. Where are the human values in islam?

Answer 1

good point, the pope only quoted an historic document... what`s wrong in remembering the history? i`m not a christian either but the pope did nothing wrong.

Answer 2

There have been truthful Hindus who have acknowledged that Islam was not spread using sword. And fighting or killing is prohibited in Islam except for what is done to defend yourselves with an order of not to exceed.

The great Hindu leader, Gandhi ji, in his earlier days, must have been influenced by a distorted picture of Islam such as this when he said: ‘Islam was born in an atmosphere of violence. At that time its determining force was the sword and even today it is the sword.’ But Gandhi ji was an observer of great insight and subsequently he corrected himself and wrote in Young India: ‘The more I study the more I discover that the strength of Islam does not lie in the sword.’

Pandit Gyanandra Dev Sharma Shastri said in a speech in 1928:
The critics are blind. They cannot see that the only ‘sword’ Muhammad wielded was the sword of mercy, compassion, friendship and forgiveness—the sword that conquers enemies and purifies their hearts. His sword was sharper than the sword of steel.

Dr D. W. Lenz, Asiatic Quarterly Review , October 1886. said:
All these arguments, advanced to prove that the purpose of jihad was to spread Islam by force, are contradicted by the Quran. The Quran says that the purpose of jihad is to protect mosques, churches, synagogues and cloisters.

If pope quotes something, he either agrees to it or disagrees to it. If he does not show is disagreement with the quote, it means he agrees with it.

Answer 3

If you review the Christianity's history, you'll find that Christians are just as guilty of violence; historians would perhaps say even more so than Muslims.

But, I don't suppose Muslims do expect a dialogue. Particularly when they represent almost a 2/3 majority of the world's population, but uniformed non-Muslims lump them all together with a comparitive handful of highly-publicized radicals. Kind of like having someone assume you're Japanese or Chinese if you say you're Asian, or assume you're a Mexican if you say you're Hispanic.

Answer 4

muslims are not threatened by death, if they dont believe, they would change, and if they do, they know that its the right path. im a muslim and quite frankly, i dont give a bloody damn about what the pope said. he can say what he likes, so can anyone else, they have the right to free speech...it doesnt bother me because i know that nobody can make me change my beliefs. you only hear about the muslims that do go mad about certain issues, cz thats what the media wants you to hear. not all muslims attck others becuse of their beliefs - only the small minded, ignorant, minority. what really pissed me off about ur question was that ur stereotyping. maybe you should do some research about the religion.

Answer 5

When he is talking to Muslims in dialogue we can share our opinions..but that wasn't a dialogue but a lecture...everyone knows that the Pope doesn't believe in Muhamed's "pbuh" prophicy but saying this on TV for the public has many political and religious backgrounds...Ahmed Didat "and i think you know him well as you are indian" made lot of conversations and dialogues with christian priests and discussed what they said about Islam and the Qur'an...just like many others who did like him.. but saying words like "evil" and I know the guy was quoting is not acceptable in a dialogue.
Want to know Ghandi's opinion about Islam?
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AiNXOqQKc7zJ9KDvvHH4odvsy6IX?qid=20060916081454AACJ01l

Answer 6

there is no human values in islam, to be islamic is give up your right to humanity,lay down you life for Mohammad who advocates murder for non believers.. sorry that's not religion

Answer 7

What follows below is my response to a friend’s email concerning the same issue as what is being discussed in this forum:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Its one thing for the common street hoodlum, or radical foot soldier, in Muslim countries, to be enraged by the comments made by the Pope. I don’t expect many of them to take time to deliberate the issue, or subsume the Pope’s comments in the proper context. They are reactionary beings. However, you would think that Imams’ and other Muslim clerics would me more academic in their reception of comments made by other religious leaders, affording their colleagues on the other side of the religious spectrum a fair hearing. Instead these so called learned men of Muslim upbringing are just as reactionary as the ruffians on the streets of Palestine, or the insurgents attacking their own people in Iraq.

It’s bizarre that both Jews and Christians are called to make concessions and penance to placate Muslim sensitivities, and yet any offense to Christian ideals or people by Muslim authorities is met with deafening silence. When Christian churches are burned to the ground, when our iconography is desecrated because of Islamic militancy, and when death threats are levied on our most revered religious figures, no one in our ranks cries out for apologies or even reparations. No calls for the destruction of Mosques; no command for the assassination of Muslim leaders; and no vitriolic statements from our religious leaders are made concerning Muslim clerics. Even when the more radical fringe of Christendom – men like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson – make inflammatory remarks concerning Muslims and Islam, there is a large outcry from both mainline Christianity and the western secular media denouncing their statements as inane and immoral.

It is the Muslim world that has failed dismally in their efforts to do the same. We always point the incriminating finger at those within our fold that act in a manner that is in discord with what we believe to be the noble thing to do. Muslim “moderates” standby quietly giving tacit approval to the aggression of their more “radical” brethren.

Muslims constantly lament the disproportionate military response to 9/11 that Bush has made. Many in the Christian wing and in the rest of the western world have called him on it, and criticize him constantly for it. Yet when Muslim people attack Christian churches for something as trivial as a cartoon or an insensitive statement made by another Christian, no one talks about the Muslim disproportionate reaction. At least our attack of Afghanistan and Iraq, though focusing on the wrong people, returned violence for violence. Muslims, in reaction to mere rhetoric, returns temporarily hurtful words with violence. Words are eventually forgotten; a loss of life has repercussions that never really go away. You tell me who is responding in a more disproportionate fashion? Who in this scenario is responding more unjustly?

I wonder if Muslims realize how utterly feeble minded they look every time they respond like this? I am curious if “moderate” Muslims are cognizant of the fact that the more they remain mute concerning the wrong doings of their radical counterparts, the more the rest of the world will see them as one in the same? For my part, I a little doubtful as to how divergent “moderate” Muslims are ideologically from their “radical” colleagues. Both of them believe that Muhammad is the supreme prophet, one who supersedes even Jesus in divine significance. Muslims of both “radical” and “moderate” stripe believe that Muhammad is also the ultimate paradigm of human behavior; a model that should be emulated as close as possible. Both, if truly candid, must acknowledge that Muhammad, UNLIKE Jesus, who is the Christian’s primary example for living, was a military commander that took part in violence, order assassinations, and engaged in all the brutality associated with a military enterprise. He ordered the execution of those whose only sin was to ridicule him. These are historical facts attested to in their Qu’ran, Hadith, and secular Arabian history. Maybe the so called “moderate” Muslims don’t vocalize dissent against the “radicals” in their midst because they know, in their heart of hearts, that those the world likes to marginalize as “radicals” really represent the manner of behavior Muhammad would have condoned. The “moderates” remain silent, so as not to underscore their secret agreement with “radical” tactics and their own cowardice at not acting on principles they agree with.

I am disappointed at my Pope for apologizing for statements that are truthful. The truth is always offensive. Jesus made statements to the Pharisees that were infused with controversy. He never apologized for them, despite how inflammatory they might have been. There is no need for Pope Benedict XVI to qualify his statement with an appeal to proper context. Even as an isolated statement, the statements by the Byzantine emperor, that the Pope was quoting, are a truthful assessment of Islam’s prophet. The Catholic Church needs stop being politically correct. The Catholic Church needs to cease abiding by a culture of appeasement. Why should the Pope apologize for the narrow minds of those who cannot read a statement in its context, or who cannot admit to the dark side of their faith? Contrition and forgiveness are foundations to the Christian faith, but to be contrite, when one is not at fault, makes a mockery of reconciliation. If the church continues to be spineless like this, even I will want to leave it.