Why a sword?

"Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword."
Matthew 26:52

"Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap."
Galatians 6:7

Islam's reaping harvest will come for all the violence by the sword they have sown. How long will they continue to mock God and get away with it? I wouldn't want to be them and find out...

It could be understood as the truth of how Islam was REALLY spread, unlike Christianity which did it via word of mouth and dedicated missionaries.

Did the Pope give the king anything in return? If so, what?

ebonystone - I hope the Pope gave the Barbarian King a Cross.

But, of course he didn't, right? That might offend the Barbarian King, and we can't have that, NoSir.

A gift that says all you need to know about Islam.

Why a sword?

"The better to decapitate you with, my dear."

I hope His Holiness didn't give the king a Papermate.

Hidden message: 'We're gonna edge you out.'

The scorpio and the frog

The scorpio wanted to cross a river, but he couldn't swim. After talking to many different swimming animals, who stubbornly refused to carry him, the scorpio finally managed to talk a frog into helping him:

- Would you carry me to the other side of the river? - says the scorpio

- No way! - answers the frog - I would never carry a scorpio in my back, you will end up stinging me and poisoning me, and I will die!

- Do you think I am stupid? - says the scorpio - I cannot swim! If you die, I die! I would never to such a thing!

The frog lets himself be convinced by the flowery language of the scorpio and agrees to carry him to the other side of the river. In the middle of the way, the scorpio stings the frog, who gets paralyzed by the poison and cannot swim. The frog asks the scorpio, puzzled:

- Why did you do that? Now, we both die!

To which the scorpio answers:

- Because I am a scorpio, and this is what scorpios do.

I have a gift that I can send in the Pope's name. I will mail the King a nice photo album, a very large one. Inside will be photos and names of people of non-Muslims faiths and Muslim converts to have been tortured, imprisoned and put to death for the solely for the crime of not being Muslim. Those other faiths will include Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Mandaeans, Yadzis, and Muslims who committed apostasy. In order that I don't have to buy a large supply of albums, I will limit the photos and names to those 'infidels' whose lives have been ruined by Islam in just the past year. Still I will have to buy the largest album that I can, make the photos very small and use the smallest print that I can. I will wrap it in green paper, just to show how sensitive and multi-cultural I really am.

alice.it is reporting that the Pope gave the king a 16th-century print and a gold medallion. It also says that they spoke for half an hour in private, just two interpreters. O to be be a fly on the palace wall...
The ANSA news service is saying that in his address the Pope described the presence of Christians in SA as "operosa," or "hard-working." A very interesting choice of words for the poor Filipino drudges of the kingdom.

Perhaps the King was just making a point......

Perhaps the King was just making a point......

Posted by: tanstaafl at November 7, 2007 9:05 AM

Why a sword? Because a plastic explosive doesn't look as nice.

Your making something out of nothing here. The pope is a religious figure and Abdullah is a king. Even if Saudi Arabia was not Muslim he would still be using tribal customs.

I dont think we need this as of proof of Islams evil. Theres plenty of other things to prove that.

The ANSA news service is saying that in his address the Pope described the presence of Christians in SA as "operosa," or "hard-working." A very interesting choice of words for the poor Filipino drudges of the kingdom.

Posted by: ppeter

And so unlike the moslems in Europe, who everywhere are on the welfare rolls in dis-proportionate numbers.

BlowHammed,

Their tribal customs are Islamic.

Gary,

"Hidden message: 'We're gonna edge you out.' "

Could also be another hidden message, to tell Christians to stop doing missionary work in areas where there is Muslim populations or otherwise face possible war.

In tribalist cultures the gift of a sword to one who has been or might in future be an enemy is an extreme compliment and a show of trust: the recipient is, by such a gift, acknowledged to be person of great character and trustworthiness. The implicit message of the gift of a sword is that you TRUST that the person to whom you have given it is a friend who will NOT use it against you.

It's actually a tremendously complimentary thing for the King to have done, and that he did it openly for all the world to see speaks VOLUMES to the Pope (or it should, if they read this correctly) and also to the people of the MUSLIM world that he places trust in both the Pope and the office of the Holy See.

His visit is a really GOOD THING, an amazing action for him to take, an extraordinary overture after last year's flap, a message that he wants people.

Try to remember that Abdullah is NOT Sudairi and is likely moving to disengage from the Wahhabi factions in the imamry and in the family as fast as he can.

This is does not mean I think there is no danger here. It just means that not everything that happens bodes ill.

This is a good action and should be read as such.

A little message there for the Pope--and all of Christianity?

Morgaan Sinclair,

It could be possible that for this Saudi King, the time for the Saudi royals is coming to a close as far as power goes, with a population pulling in all directions wanting change. Also if my memory is correct, nearly 30 years ago the wahhabis wanted to overthrow them, and ever since the former has been trying to buy time. But the next time, it could be against them.

Or another way of telling Christianity what was tried by 138 Muslim scholars not too long ago.

I heard it has a caption engraved in Arabic:
"Jihad--coming soon to your city" along with a Saudi flag.

comprendo pope?

Perhaps the King thought that the conversation might get a little prickly...........

The mere fact that the Saudis are worried enough to be conducting this world-wide charm offensive by Muslims and especially Saudis is a good thing, as long as that charm offensive, along with the usual smoke-and-mirrors, delivered by solemn, gravelly-voiced Abdullah or some other among the fungible Al-Saud (god, what with the daggers and dishdashas, and the double-layer goatee, and the sinister mien, they are so hard to keep apart, aren't they?), which is not having the effect that the Muslim propagandists and their Saudi paymasters thought it would.

For another example of their failure, look at the intelligent, informed, and therefore highly critical analyses of the contents of that letter signed by those "138 Muslim clerics and scholars" which they were no doubt were hoping would make such an impression, but the world today is not the world of even a year ago, and too many people can read not only what is written between the lines, but make sense of what is written on those lines, and they weren't having any of it.

How the hell do the Al-Saud think they can indefinitely keep from 85% of the world's population, all of its Infidels that is, the truth about what is contained in Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira? How do they think they can indefinitely silence all those who have left, jettisoned, Islam and are here, and there, and now everywhere in the West? How will they deal with the growing list of articulate apostates, who now include Ibn Warraq and Wafa Sultan and Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Ali Sina, and tens of thousands of the most morally and intellectually advanced, among those who, through no fault of their own, are born into societies suffused with Islam. These people, whose testimonies are now in print, came to recognize the nature of Islam, and having, in the West, grounds for comparison, have analyzed its dangerous and retrograde effects on its own adherents, and having decided to make the break, being held back neither by fear of retribution by fanatical Believers, nor by some residual filial piety (affection for one's quietly pious grandmother, for example), and with no desire to remain in a Muslim society and work from within for change (and to do so they could not dare to speak the truth about Islam), have become the witnesses that even the Al-Saud cannot suppress, try as they might.

And the studies of the real scholars of Islam, the ones who wrote during the period before the Great Inhibition that began in the 1960s and has gathered strength ever since, but now, in the face of Muslim behavior, and Muslim activities, around the world, may at long last be itself crumbling, and just as Saudi paymasters are no longer recruiting quite so effectively for that army of Western hirelings they have employed in the capitals of the West, the reputation of the MESA-Nostrans has been damaged, they have been held up for ridicule, and the obviousness of their apologetics, the way in which they have prevented their students from learning about the texts and tenets of Islam, and about the history of Islamic conquest and subjugation of all the various non-Muslim peoples conquered, is now clear to many commentators, who are no longer in a mood to be impressed by academic titles (after all, since so many of us have been to college and graduate schools ourselves, and know how dismal some of those with titles turn out to be, and certainly know about academic politics, and how rigged the game so obviously is, and must be, when it comes to hiring practices in the fields of Islam and the Middle East. "Question authority" is a bumpersticker and an attitude, often unjustified, but perfectly justified when it comes to professors of Middle Eastern and Islamic studies and related subjects. (For more, google "MESA Nostra").

Imagine that you are the Saudi king. How the hell are you going to prevent Infidels from finding out what is broadcast on Saudi television and radio? Now that that wonderful translating service, MEMRI, exists, you can't. And how are you going to prevent Infidels from getting copies of the textbooks used in Saudi schools? You can't. And how will you prevent Infidels from reading, and re-reading with proper understanding, the Qur'an and the Hadith, and analyzing the figure of Muhammad, as presented in the Sira, or the Muslim sacralized biographies of Muhammad, uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil, forever? You just can't.

So you send out the fog machines. One of the them keeps sending the message that "Islam is not a monolith." This is Tariq Ramadan's old-new tack, meaning "don't you Infidels dare try to say anything about Islam because all generalizations will be untrue" -- a clear confusion between the superficial variousness of dress and Iftar foods, and the clear unity of Islam embodied in the canonical, immutable, straight-from-God-or-His-Messenger texts, that do not change, in time or in space, so that when Tariq Ramadan refers to something he likes to call "European Islam" he is making something up, there is no "European" or "American" Islam; there is only one Islam, or rather, because there are Sunni and Shi'a and Ibadi Muslims, and because some 2% of Muslims are called "Sufis" because their approach to God is supposedly whirling-dervishly mystical, there is only one Islam when it comes to the thing that really matters: the attitude of Muslims toward Infidels. And there, there is no disagreement, no variousness, only that "monolithic" attitude that Tariq Ramadan pretends to be unable to find.

The other is the old Tu-Quoque: just look at what is contained in that bad old Leviticus, apologists for Islam say, what with the ancient Israelites doing this and that. But when it is made clear that for several thousand years Jews in their synagogues have not been listening to sermons telling them that they should be smashing the heads of the Canaanites, and that the Jewish attachment to the tiny Land of Israel is not exactly equivalent to the Muslim claim to the whole wide world, a world which must ultimately come under Islam and rule by Muslims. And when the Crusades are brought up, it is then pointed out that the Crusades were a response to many centuries of Muslim attacks and conquest of Christian lands, and above all to the attacks, beginnig with the Caliph al-Hakim's attempted razing of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in 1009 A.D.,and then a century of attacks, some by Seljuk Turks, on Christian pilgrims and sites in the Holy Land, and that this response, the Crusades, were limited in time and space, to recovering only the Holy Land, a campaign quite different from that of Islamic Jihad, which is prompted by the inculcated belief that a permanent state of war that Islam insists must exist between Muslims and all others, and that a central duty of Muslims is to engage in the "struggle" or Jihad to push back the boundaries of Dar al-Islam and reduce those of Dar al-Harb, until Islam dominates everywhere, and everywhere, Muslims rule.

How do the Saudis or other Arabs and Muslims think they will prevent the world's Infidels from finding out about this? How will they prevent them from reading, with understanding, the Qur'an, the Hadith, the Sira? They can't. They won't.

Morgaan wrote:

"In tribalist cultures the gift of a sword to one who has been or might in future be an enemy is an extreme compliment and a show of trust: the recipient is, by such a gift, acknowledged to be person of great character and trustworthiness. The implicit message of the gift of a sword is that you TRUST that the person to whom you have given it is a friend who will NOT use it against you."

Perhaps. But I couldn't help think of an analogous situation. say the traditional gift that heads of mafia clans present to each other is a loaded pistol. you know, as a sign of respect & demonstration of trust that the recipient won't pick up the gun & blow the gift-giver's head off. one day, a don visits his priest to, ahem, beg forgiveness for all the murders he's ordered that week. following custom, he presents the priest with a loaded gun. The priest says, "What the Hell is this?" And the don says, "Father, it's a token of my respect & proof of my faith that you won't pick up the gun & shoot me."

C'mon.

Giving the sowrd was both a threat and symbolic.A very eloquent way - as the arabs are wont to be (also the Persians).

No custom exists without a history. A way of saying, to a visiting vassal- VASSAL: "We give you permission to conquer by the sword. But if you betray Our loyalty, you will die by Our sword."

It was also probably noted, by the vassal, as a "Sword of Damocles." As if to say, "We are watching you closely."

And last, pope Benedict didn't have to accept the sword. What did he think to gain by going to Arabia? WHAT BUSINESS DID THE POPE HAVE GOING THERE? What concessions. He's NOT an ignorant man, he knows very well what it's about, and he also knows, that islam does NOT compromise. islam does NOT bend.

Not only that, but the monarchy of Arabia wants to keep their power and wealthy. They in turn are being watched by their "constituents." Yes, the monarchs are just front men for the mullahs.

THERE WILL BE NO CONCESSIONS IN FAVOR OF CHRISTIANITY!

BECAUSE THERE IS NO CENTRAL HEAD OF ISLAM - AS IN XTIANITY.

In fact, by Benedict going there - making the trip to visit kingy, he's shown himself to be a vassal.

THE WHOLE THING IS JUST A SHOW FOR THE IGNORANT - STUPID PEASANTS.

A SICK SHOW!

The mere fact that the Saudis are worried enough to be conducting this world-wide charm offensive by Muslims and especially Saudis is a good thing, as long as that charm offensive, along with the usual smoke-and-mirrors, delivered by solemn, gravelly-voiced Abdullah or some other among the fungible Al-Saud (god, what with the daggers and dishdashas, and the double-layer goatee, and the sinister mien, they are so hard to keep apart, aren't they?), which is not having the effect that the Muslim propagandists and their Saudi paymasters thought it would.

For another example of their failure, look at the intelligent, informed, and therefore highly critical analyses of the contents of that letter signed by those "138 Muslim clerics and scholars" which they were no doubt were hoping would make such an impression, but the world today is not the world of even a year ago, and too many people can read not only what is written between the lines, but make sense of what is written on those lines, and they weren't having any of it.

How the hell do the Al-Saud think they can indefinitely keep from 85% of the world's population, all of its Infidels that is, the truth about what is contained in Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira? How do they think they can indefinitely silence all those who have left, jettisoned, Islam and are here, and there, and now everywhere in the West? How will they deal with the growing list of articulate apostates, who now include Ibn Warraq and Wafa Sultan and Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Ali Sina, and tens of thousands of the most morally and intellectually advanced, among those who, through no fault of their own, are born into societies suffused with Islam. These people, whose testimonies are now in print, came to recognize the nature of Islam, and having, in the West, grounds for comparison, have analyzed its dangerous and retrograde effects on its own adherents, and having decided to make the break, being held back neither by fear of retribution by fanatical Believers, nor by some residual filial piety (affection for one's quietly pious grandmother, for example), and with no desire to remain in a Muslim society and work from within for change (and to do so they could not dare to speak the truth about Islam), have become the witnesses that even the Al-Saud cannot suppress, try as they might.

And the studies of the real scholars of Islam, the ones who wrote during the period before the Great Inhibition that began in the 1960s and has gathered strength ever since, but now, in the face of Muslim behavior, and Muslim activities, around the world, may at long last be itself crumbling, and just as Saudi paymasters are no longer recruiting quite so effectively for that army of Western hirelings they have employed in the capitals of the West, the reputation of the MESA-Nostrans has been damaged, they have been held up for ridicule, and the obviousness of their apologetics, the way in which they have prevented their students from learning about the texts and tenets of Islam, and about the history of Islamic conquest and subjugation of all the various non-Muslim peoples conquered, is now clear to many commentators, who are no longer in a mood to be impressed by academic titles (after all, since so many of us have been to college and graduate schools ourselves, and know how dismal some of those with titles turn out to be, and certainly know about academic politics, and how rigged the game so obviously is, and must be, when it comes to hiring practices in the fields of Islam and the Middle East. "Question authority" is a bumpersticker and an attitude, often unjustified, but perfectly justified when it comes to professors of Middle Eastern and Islamic studies and related subjects. (For more, google "MESA Nostra").

Imagine that you are the Saudi king. How the hell are you going to prevent Infidels from finding out what is broadcast on Saudi television and radio? Now that that wonderful translating service, MEMRI, exists, you can't. And how are you going to prevent Infidels from getting copies of the textbooks used in Saudi schools? You can't. And how will you prevent Infidels from reading, and re-reading with proper understanding, the Qur'an and the Hadith, and analyzing the figure of Muhammad, as presented in the Sira, or the Muslim sacralized biographies of Muhammad, uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil, forever? You just can't.

So you send out the fog machines. One of the them keeps sending the message that "Islam is not a monolith." This is Tariq Ramadan's old-new tack, meaning "don't you Infidels dare try to say anything about Islam because all generalizations will be untrue" -- a clear confusion between the superficial variousness of dress and Iftar foods, and the clear unity of Islam embodied in the canonical, immutable, straight-from-God-or-His-Messenger texts, that do not change, in time or in space, so that when Tariq Ramadan refers to something he likes to call "European Islam" he is making something up, there is no "European" or "American" Islam; there is only one Islam, or rather, because there are Sunni and Shi'a and Ibadi Muslims, and because some 2% of Muslims are called "Sufis" because their approach to God is supposedly whirling-dervishly mystical, there is only one Islam when it comes to the thing that really matters: the attitude of Muslims toward Infidels. And there, there is no disagreement, no variousness, only that "monolithic" attitude that Tariq Ramadan pretends to be unable to find.

The other is the old Tu-Quoque: just look at what is contained in that bad old Leviticus, apologists for Islam say, what with the ancient Israelites doing this and that. But when it is made clear that for several thousand years Jews in their synagogues have not been listening to sermons telling them that they should be smashing the heads of the Canaanites, and that the Jewish attachment to the tiny Land of Israel is not exactly equivalent to the Muslim claim to the whole wide world, a world which must ultimately come under Islam and rule by Muslims. And when the Crusades are brought up, it is then pointed out that the Crusades were a response to many centuries of Muslim attacks and conquest of Christian lands, and above all to the attacks, beginnig with the Caliph al-Hakim's attempted razing of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in 1009 A.D.,and then a century of attacks, some by Seljuk Turks, on Christian pilgrims and sites in the Holy Land, and that this response, the Crusades, were limited in time and space, to recovering only the Holy Land, a campaign quite different from that of Islamic Jihad, which is prompted by the inculcated belief that a permanent state of war that Islam insists must exist between Muslims and all others, and that a central duty of Muslims is to engage in the "struggle" or Jihad to push back the boundaries of Dar al-Islam and reduce those of Dar al-Harb, until Islam dominates everywhere, and everywhere, Muslims rule.

How do the Saudis or other Arabs and Muslims think they will prevent the world's Infidels from finding out about this? How will they prevent them from reading, with understanding, the Qur'an, the Hadith, the Sira? They can't. They won't.

All the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten this.

I guess it is better than a quran

******We have a winner*****
Why a sword? Because a plastic explosive doesn't look as nice.
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS

Hugh has a good point about reading. The West is not like Pakistan where 80% of the population is illiterate and just taught to sing the Koran which to them is a foreign incomprehensible chant. The west will win when it uses its intelligence and literacy to read what these scoundrels are planning. The west will begin a new crusade back against the moslems when it cogitates the insidious nature of the contemporary islamic conquests and its new provocations against the west.

Hugh,

You are spot on in that today, with the help of the internet, the truth about Islam, the Koran, Hadith, ete., is now starting to come out. The Saudi king is living in deniel to the reality that the cat is forever out of the bag.

"The west will begin a new crusade back against the moslems..."

1- We already have a "Crusade" in IRaq and Afghanistan - only they're are not called that at this time. We're the Crusades called that when they were taking place?

2- We don't want to wast our resources on the islamics any more.

AND TO WHERE DO WE CRUSADE?
Darfur?

WHAT WE H-A-V-E TO DO IS STOP ALLOWING THEM INTO THE WEST AND STOP GIVING THEM CONCESSIONS.

We MUST show them who has the upper hand. That is the only way to treat those people.

But of course the meeting was held in the Vatican/Rome/The West and not in Saudi Arabia.

"Also if my memory is correct, nearly 30 years ago the wahhabis wanted to overthrow them, and ever since the former has been trying to buy time."

bigcatgirl,

Faisal was assassinated thirty two years ago, by a nephew. Saudis claim he "acted alone". Was he another Lee Harvey Oswald? Was he a deranged loner or merely the front man?

The pope should sell that thing on E-Bay and give the money to the poor.

JLP

It's the "Sword Of Peace"!!! Everybody knows that......

Hopefully the Pope gave Abdullah a copy of that new limited edition book that the Vatican had commissioned about the Templars.

How ironic. He gave the pope the sword so the pope can lead the next crusade.

...too bad the Muslims did not bestow a Catholic Church in Saudi Arabia, free to be used by Non Muslims to pray and sing religious hymns without worrying about the Muslim violence outside the door....

Here's another way to spin the story: The Saudi king, as guardian of the holy cities, is the most prestigious figure in the islamic world, almost a de facto caliph. He has given a sword, the symbol of power and authority, to the most prestigious figure in the European world, the pope. The meaning of this is that he has given authority over Europe's moslems to the pope; the pope has been made a sort of lieutenant-caliph for Europe. So the pope should get busy and issue a pastoral letter (he can call it a fatwa if he likes) to Europe's moslems, and tell them to get with the program: to become honest and honorable citizens of their various countries; to lay off the honor-killing, the rapes, the murders and threats, the forced marriages, the FGM, the burning and looting, the bombings, the terror-training, and all the rest of their vicious behavior. If they (the moslems) refuse to listen to this lieutenant-caliph, he can use (symbolically) the "sword of the caliph" against them by instructing the authorities to deal with them by closing their mosques and schools, and by disenfranchising and/or deporting them.

These items are slightly off topic, but I hope appropos.

A man, Paul Addis, tried to blow up San Francisco's Episcopal Grace Cathdral a few days ago. (Note--this man is *not* Muslim.) He was also responsible for the early torching of the eponymous figure at the Burning Man Festival a couple of months ago. He appears to be an anarchist--he commited the arson at Burning Man because that festival--though often cited by commentators for its wildness and rampant drug use--had gotten too tame and commercial for his taste.

What is noteworthy is that a columnist for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Dorothy Parvaz, wrote that she understands how someone would want to burn a church down because it is an "oppressive institution".

How oppressive is the diocese at Grace Cathedral? They have frequent Interfaith and Multicultural events--they have hosted World AIDS Day; outreach to the homeless; the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Trangender ministry; and held Hatha Yoga classes in their labyrinth. A lot of terms come to mind, but "oppressive" is not one of them.

Oh, but they are having a service on the 11th for those who died in service to their country. I guess that's pretty oppressive.

And news from across the pond:

London (CNSNews.com) - It's time for Britain to recognize that it is no longer a Christian nation and should embrace multiculturalism, according to a liberal think-tank favored by Prime Minister Gordon Brown.
.....

Hmm--and here I thought most Britons had been "embracing multiculturalism" for some time. I guess Christians really do have a lot to learn about tolerance.

Crikey - If the Episcopalians, with their watered-down faith, got Addis all fired up, imagine how he'd respond to Primitive Baptists.

Since the American National Park Service is removing all reference to 'God' in America, wouldn't be fair to say that the Saudi Flag can NEVER fly on American National Park properties, goverment buildings, White House, in Congress or Senate?

Because of the referance to God on the Saudi flag it cannot be put on display in any American goverment building without a violation of 'seperation of church and state'. If our God is removed from American public, it would be favoritism to put the Saudi god on display.

Wasn't it the Iraqi soccer balls that everyone freaked about because it had international flags on it. The Saudi flag has Allah on it, so the soccer balls were removed and an apology issued.

So, if the Saudi flag can go into goverment offices and be on display with the reference of god, then we can have our reference of God too.

Sheik yer Booty ...

Did I say something that I shouldn't have or something? If so, why shouldn't I have said it?

bigcatgirl ...

I have long believed that the Al Sa'ud are "investing" in American (in ideology, money, control of oil supplies -- and hence control of the culture) because they know that eventually the oil will run dry, get invented out of importance, or that they will be driven out by insane radicals. They have long been looking for somewhere to go. Since America is the ONLY land other than the kingdom where Wahhabism is the predominant form of Islam, I figure they'll try to come here.

But I also think that Abdullah wants the Kingdom completely revamped. If he doesn't move slowly he'll simply be assassinated. His changing of the succession rules so marginalized Nayef (the beloved of the Wahhabis) that Nayef actually claimed to support equality between men and women. Won't do him any good. He won't be King now.

So I think Abdullah is trying to get things reformed, but knows he is now 83 years old and will not live long enough to see it. Meanwhile, the Al Sa'ud as a clan are laying down nests all over the world, but mainly here, the only country strong enough to protect them from the incredible Muslim backlash against them that is coming.

Wishfully thinking, the pope should have given Avdullah the Sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God. That is why I post Bible verses in English and Arabic.

Oh, and for clarification the Koran is not and never has been the word of God.

Hebrews 4:12
For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

اليهود 4:12
من اجل كلمة الله هي الحيه والنشطه. ادق من اي الحدين السيف ، حتى يخرقها الى تقسيم روح وروح ، و مفاصل نخاع ؛ ومن القضاة الافكار والمواقف من القلب

I'm trying to find confirmation but Catholic radio reported that the Pope actually did give Abdullah a gift, not a rosary as is custom but a beautiful Arabic edition of the Bible. I love this pope!

Along with the Bible to represent the people of the BOOK!!!! the Pope also gave Abdullah some artwork.

What is it about Muslims and giving swords as gifts?!! Here, let me give you something that I would want to receive as a gift but that may be repulsive to you. Oh well, I don't care, I'm a Muslim, and that's all that matters.

Some of you may remember my mentioning the business my husband and I used to own and the two Muslim employees that worked for us. Well, one year one of the guys went to Jordan to visit family, and upon his return gave my husband a sword. Thanks????

Hubby brought it home and I didn't know what to do with this outrageous "gift". Should I hide it, or put it out on display alongside the Moose head over our mantle? I don't know, it didn't exactly go with our decor, so I decided to hide that thing in a closet for about a year; but then it wound up in the trash can where it belongs.

So the Pope has my sympathies.....

A sword seems a rather inappropriate gift, to say the least.

And I thought it was a pool cue.

I guess the Saudi's are as subtle as the Mafia, who leave a fish on your doorstep.

What didn't this Pope kiss kiss the Koran like the last Pope did...

Maybe the Pope should return the favor by giving the King a crucifix to hang on HIS wall. Gee, maybe he'll melt at the sight of it like the Wicked Witch of the West in OZ did. And to think that the solution has been right under our noses!

Champ! You tossed a sword from Jordan? It might have brought $200 or %300 in the US if it was really made in Jordan.

Before the western world became infected with the PC disease it was not uncommon for a head of state to be presented with a weapon upon a visit. Usually it was a special production model with commemorative engraving. Presentation weapons were once a great compliment, and the Pope is also a head of state.

This is one that Lincoln presented to Senator Crittendon:

http://www.invaluable.com/catalog/viewLot.cfm?sample=10393
The low estimate is only $400,000.

It must be a guy thing; because I would not consider it such an outrageous gift.

champ:

Why are you so offended by swords, and quick to assume the Holy Father would find it "repulsive"? The first pope had one, after all (and used it at the Garden of Gethsamone to cut off Malchus's ear).

That should have been "Gethsemane."

Hey Pelayo -- he said he bought it in Jordan, but it looked REALLY cheap, like something he traded a pack of cigarettes for from a Jordanian junk dealer on the street. It was so funky that I couldn't have GIVEN it away, let alone try to fetch a buck for it; but we sure enjoyed the laughs it generated. It's funny until you realize what it stands for.

Seamus -- ha ha! :-)

Champ, One of those swords! My father once bought two large knives at a flea market. These knives were marked Made in Pakistan and STAINLESS. My father paid only about ten dollars for both. On close examination they were made from soft steel, and they were thinly nickel plated!

Dad did not have his glasses with him on that trip. The vendor was not at that flea market on the next weekend.

Chaldean Catholics in the Crosshairs

http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=25839

Pelayo...the sword I tossed in the garbage had a hard blade with a funky PLASTIC handle, so it couldn't have been stainless steel. My Dad had a huge gun/knife collector too, but I don't recall any swords! Guess it's a guy thing.

One should never throw away a sword given by a Destroyer-you never know if you'll need it someday to defend yourself against the giver by turning them into that marvelous Muslim "agricultural invention" (so said a famous poster here once)-the kebob.

Morgaan:

Now why would I want you not to express your opinion? you're certainly entitled to, within the rather generous limits set by JW's moderators. I just happen to disagree with you on this topic. A gift can be entirely appropriate from the point of view of the giver, but inappropriate from the recipient's, which I think is the case here. BTW, I don't think I'd have anything to say if the saudi king presented a sword to a head of state. just not this particular head of state, if indeed that is his title as head of the Vatican.

Also, you have a rather benign view of the king. I don't. I consider saudi arabia an enemy, one not necessarily to attack, but to treat as one would a bad seed in the family. i.e., don't become dependent on them for anything, and, in general, don't have anything to do with them.

"....the saudi king presented a sword to a head of state"

sheik, there's a uneasy irony in your comment :-)

"How ironic. He gave the pope the sword so the pope can lead the next crusade."

Posted by: mrockroll1969

HILARIOUS!!

"How do the Saudis or other Arabs and Muslims think they will prevent the world's Infidels from finding out about this?" -- Hugh

They have confidence (not without good reason) that western media will continue to shroud the truth about Islam.

One of those rare days - I at least partly agree with Morgaan. A sword is a pretty good gift - just because one gets it doesn't imply that one has to stab or behead someone else with it. It typically implies an acknowledgement of the valor of the recipient - not sure whether that's true here for the Saudi ruler. Champ, had I received a sword, I'd have kept it: I dunno how I'd have reacted had it said 'Made in _____' (fill in any Islamic country): on one hand, I want to boycott Islam, otoh, I prefer their weapons be in my hands than theirs.

On the Saudis, though, I'd as usual, have to disagree. But nothing new there.

Hi IP -- I got rid of it after being introduced to Jihad Watch, so that definitely had something to do with my decision. I knew nothing about Islam when we received the sword, and at the time it was nothing more than an odd gift; but later it stood for something else -- something that I've come to abhor -- so it felt pretty good to get rid of it, and I would do it again.

But I understand why you might want to keep it, because I think that men tend to collect guns/knives & SWORDS. And women! Not saying that women aren't into collecting weapons too, I'm just not one of them.

Some background on Saudi King Abdullah, who is described, correctly, as a Salifist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_of_Saudi_Arabia

A recent article, not too flattering:
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article3106888.ece

Abdullah's favourite reading material (which he happens to live by, and which he wants everyone else to live by or under):

http://quran.al-islam.com/

http://quran.al-islam.com/Subject/Tree.asp?l=eng&p=0-2599-&
Quran --> Al-Jihad.

http://hadith.al-islam.com/bayan/Index.asp?Lang=ENG&Type=3
Hadith Mutawatir (Genuine).

Abu Hurairah, may Allah be pleased with him, reported:
The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: I have been commanded to fight against people until they testify that there is no god but Allah, and he who professes it is guaranteed the protection of his property and life on my behalf except for a right warrant, and his affairs rest with Allah.
Hadith number in Sahih Muslim [Arabic only]: 30

excuse the typo: Salafist or Salafi.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salafi

From Abdullah's official site:

"Paradise is under the blades of swords” [1]
...apparently a variant of Muhammad's
"Paradise is under the shades of swords" [2]

9:5 is cited many times in Abdullah's section on Al-Jihad. Here is a mainstream tafsir.
http://www.mquran.org/index.php/content/view/7272/2/
“This is the Ayah of the Sword” [Quran 9:5 Tafsir Ibn Kathir]

From Sahih Bukhari:
http://bewley.virtualave.net/bukhari23.html#jihad
LXXXVII: What is said about spears
“It is mentioned from Ibn 'Umar from the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, "My provision has been placed under the shadow of my spear, and abasement and humility have been placed on the one who disobeys my command."”

http://www.mquran.org/index.php/content/view/8764/2/
“The Benefits of Iron” [Quran 57:25 Tafsir Ibn Kathir]

Why a sword?

Probably for the same reasons they avoid answering the question, of why Jerusalem isn't mentioned in the koran at all, like the plague.
(hint: it's not a ROP, and it has no bearing on the REAL God of Abraham at all, but on the moon god LAH, hence, al-lah)

He's on a massive PR trip for a reason...he's 83, his country is disliked worldwide worse than we are (not even close at that),
he's not in good health, when he dies the line of succession method will change from imams to princes deciding,
the imams HATE this fact as they lose power,
his half-brother heir is more pro-western than he is (though he's 81 & not much better off),
his own kids hate that as they prefer obl,
and will not allow this to take place...
he'll be lucky to be here in 3 years, let alone 5.
the house of saud will be lucky to be here in 3 years, let alone 5,
bottom line,
imminent civil war,
and it will likely follow similar pattern as that fictional klingon civil war in the star trek TV series.
Helluva choice...
saudi arabia...or caliphate arabia

And to top that off, iran is watching events closely too...

The Pope should ceremoniously have the sword beaten into a plowshare, and promptly put to use to feed people.

B-XVI should have rejected the gift and told him that he has no need for a sword.

Why a sword? Because that is the traditional gift. It is simply good hospitality. The identity of the recipient is irrelevant. The point is to be a good host. Being rude to your guest is a terrible thing. Remember the reaction to the way Columbia's president scolded Amadamnnutjob? This was all about the king following protocol. He probably never gave it a thought that a sword is a strange gift for a pope.

The arab is a king, which presumably means that he has a diplomatic staff working for him.

Even if Abdullah is a total butt-head, it's nearly impossible that everybody on his staff didn't know that the gift of a sword to the Christian Pope wasn't a thoroughly inappropriate gift.

In the world of diplomacy, one tunes gifts to the values and preferences of the receiver as a way of communicating understanding and respect.

To do otherwise is a clear signal of other meanings.

In this case it is a clear declaration of superiority and scorn.

It is to say "we're doing this on my terms, not yours".

I mean, this is the Pope for crying out loud!

============

The implications are quite clear. And the confusion in the media is disgraceful.

The Pope should melt it down & have it remolded...into a Crusader sword.
How fitting...lol

Of course as a Christian--and the most prominent leader of a Christian denomination--he cannot do what anyone not so constrained by his beliefs could and should have done: tell Abdullah to shove that sword where the sun-don't-shine.

Maybe this or a future pope will graciously use this sword by holding it high as he declares the 10th Crusade.

We can dream... and pray!

Well, if St. Malachi's predictions (about the Popes) hold as true as they have been, looks like we may live to see that...but only after the islamofascists commence their "final assault" for their "final solution" first.

I unsderstand the pope gave the king an old painting of the vatican. frankkly, let's be fair, the pope insulted the islamic. The pope is a man without common sense, with a lot of chutzpah, frankly, a stupid man. The sword has more value.