# The Pope's comments



## Alxmrphi

Am I the only one to think that the Muslim community has shown us all yet again how they can react?? (like the Mohammed cartoons a few months back) ?

This has really annoyed me, the Pope quoted a Byzantine emperor and even said (Benedict refering to the emperor) "- in a surprisingly brusque way -".

I do not hate Islam or Muslims, but, the mentality of these street protesters, especially after the cartoons and slander I have given seen them give the Jews, I am shocked and really annoyed at those Muslims (the ones you see protesting, not all!)

To me it seems like a bully in a class room who will do all kinds to people (we all know or have known someone like this) but if the slightest thing gets done to them, they will kick and scream and cause a bit massive unnecessary fuss.

This is the impression I am getting, and I don't want to resent any Muslims, but I am certainly getting a very bad vibe that really angers me, from some Muslims and they're "hissyfits" I see them as.

What are everybody elses views on 
(Whilst bearing in mind the reactions of other religions if any other race/religion commented on their way of life)


a) The Pope's comments?
b) The mentality of "some" Muslims (the ones we see protesting now and the ones that seem to think any joke or jab is like the death of their parents, like the Mohammed Cartoons fiasco we had a few months ago)

I will be very interested to hear your views.


----------



## GenJen54

Before we let reactions and emotions get out of hand, may I suggest everyone please read any if not all of the following threads:

Is Islam being misunderstood?
What Do you Think of Making Fun of Gods and Prophets?
Why Terrorism is Linked to Islam

It goes without saying that like the above-linked threads, the topic carries a great deal of emotion on both all sides of the issue.  As such, I request everyone act in a cordial and respectful manner, even when disagreeing with another poster.

Thank you.


----------



## ayed

Hi, every body right here.

I have no comments .Just read and be the judge by yourself.
_"...that violence, embodied in the Muslim idea of jihad, or holy war, is contrary to reason and God’s plan, while the West was so beholden to reason that Islam could not understand it."_

_“Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread the sword by the faith he preached,” ...__He went on to say that violent conversion to Islam was contrary to reason and thus “contrary to God’s nature.”_


Two questions:
1.Why did the Pope quoted that Emperor?
2.Is the Pope all-knowing?


----------



## Outsider

ayed said:


> 1.Why did the Pope quoted that Emperor?


To criticize the opinion espoused by the emperor, perhaps? 
I have not heard the news, yet.


----------



## Tsoman

The Pope has rights too


----------



## Cereth

mmm I was raised in a catholic family, right now I don´t consider myself as catholic and I think this Pope is not as warm and cleaver as the last Pope,his comments are out of the line...I haven´t heard them yet and I guess I won´t hear it on TV, Mexico is a "popes-lovers land" so maybe the news won´t be spread in here easily....but if what you are saying is true ..Who is this pope for speaking about muslims? I really dislike this kind of "I am the guardian of the truth/ superiority complex-like" comments....

Baka.....


----------



## .   1

I hear the cacophony of pots calling kettles black.
The Pope must have felt the need to be noticed.
What a wonderful example of The Peter Principle.

.,,


----------



## natasha2000

What did Pope say? Which Emperor did he quote? And when? Why? 
If it is not too much to ask...


----------



## Outsider

In his own words...

I found it at the Snopes message board.


----------



## GenJen54

ayed provided a few samplings in his post #4; Outsider the entire speech.  

HERE is an article from the Washington Post that further discusses the issue.


----------



## Cereth

_Pope says:God is not pleased by blood, and not acting reasonably  is contrary to God’s nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death..._

That is also my belief, but that is our belief, God has never spoken from the sky and said that what we believe is the right path to follow, who says we are the good ones of this movie-life-? Why thinking muslims -well not only muslims- are wrong and the their God is worthless than ours?... 

I do believe that words are better than swords, but the Pope is trying to put muslims into the zone of the bad and mistaken people of the movie, I don´t think so..besides..-as far as I know... killing and Alá are not synonimus!!


----------



## Outsider

I don't read that in pope Benedict's words, assuming the transcript we have is accurate.

He used an event to illustrate a point, agreeing with emperor Manuel that Christianity is founded on reason -- but he does not say that Islam isn't! And he never supports Manuel's claim that Islam has added nothing to religion but violence. The whole lecture seems to me to be about Christianity, not other religions.

The article which Jen linked to says:



> The statement quoted the Vatican ambassador as saying he "regretted the hurt caused to Muslims." The ambassador added that "the media had totally misconstrued certain historical quotes that the Pope used in his lecture," the statement said.


So far, I have to agree.


----------



## natasha2000

Thank you.

I would say that I find this atittude of Pope as a highly hypocritical one. What was that saying about throwing stones? He who considers himself completely innocent, can trow the first stone? Does Pope really believe that Catholic church can throw that stone to other relgions? Does any religion can throw the first stone to any other religion, as far as the faith spreading by using the sword is concerned? Has Pope forgotten rivers of innocent blood of American natives (the real ones) that was spilt in the name of Christianity and Christ (the act which, by the way, Christ didn't ask!)? Has he forgotten his predecessor, Alexander VI and his family, Borgias? Who is he to recriminate other religion for spilling blod when in the name of his own religion gallons and gallons of blood are spilt?

I don't defend Muslims and I don't say they're right. I just find highly inappropriate of a Pope to do such a thing. Because he is a Pope, not an ordinary man, so he should know better. He should know that everything he says is listened by a large number of people who believe in him, and respect him, and many of them will follow everything he says. He is a public person, and therefore, as any other politician, has a moral obligation not to say everything that corsses his mind. 

On the other hand, I agree with Dots&Commas. Maybe he just wanted to be noticed.  

Of course, it is very hard to reach the greatness of his immediate predecessor, John Paul II, who was really a great man, and a man of peace. I am an atheist, and I especially don't like catholic religion, but I admire John Paul II, because I am sure he would have never allowed to himself such a stupidity like this one. Maybe Benedict is just jealous, because he is aware he will never be like John Paul II.

Or maybe he is just the opposite - one very clever, cunning old fox. He did it because he knew what kind of reaction these words would provoke... And he needed to show to the world what a great peacelover he is, and how really BAD muslims are...

Edit: I agree with all my heart with Cereth on this:


> I do believe that words are better than swords, but the Pope is trying to put muslims into the zone of the bad and mistaken people of the movie, I don´t think so..besides..-as far as I know... killing and Alah are not synonimus!!


----------



## Cnaeius

I think that Benedict has been very ingenuous. He should know that some parts of the world are striving for accusing, without focusing really on the matter of discussion.
I read all the speech, not only some sentences here and there: let’s try to undestand *the* matter. It was a university lecture, trying to expose a specific thesis: not to act according to the Reason is against the nature of God and the use of the violence is denying God. *First* I would ask to Muslims: do you agree with this thesis? *Then* we can talk about several things


----------



## cuchuflete

> Only thus do we become capable of that genuine dialogue of cultures and religions so urgently needed today.


 That was part of the speech.  The contentious part, taken out of context, is inflammatory.  In context, it is but a snippet of a long and boring speech.

The Pope could very well have added some examples of his own faith trying to impose its "truths" by the sword, but that would have been as "off-topic" as the material he quoted.

Interesting is the absence of the answers given to the emperor by his interlocutor.  One side only of a debate leaves a lot to the imagination.


----------



## Cnaeius

Cereth said:


> Why thinking muslims -well not only muslims- are wrong and the their God is worthless than ours?...
> 
> I do believe that words are better than swords, but the Pope is trying to put muslims into the zone of the bad and mistaken people of the movie, I don´t think so..besides..-as far as I know... killing and Alá are not synonimus!!


 
The Pope never said that things. I think that misconstruing and 
self-interpreting is the right way to reach misunderstandings among people. 
The problem is not when someone does it without malice, as we sometimes do in WR, but when outside, in the world, on the media, other ones do it with malice


----------



## natasha2000

cuchuflete said:


> Interesting is the absence of the answers given to the emperor by his interlocutor. One side only of a debate leaves a lot to the imagination.


I agree. And because of that...




> The problem is not when someone does it without malice, as we sometimes do in WR, but when outside, in the world, on the media, other ones do it with malice


...maybe it was meant to be misunderstood.


----------



## Outsider

natasha2000 said:


> ...maybe it was meant to be misunderstood.


Maybe, but why not give the pope the benefit of the doubt? We have nothing to gain from assuming malice, and there may be a lot to gain from assuming good faith.


----------



## natasha2000

Outsider said:


> Maybe, but why not give the pope the benefit of the doubt? We have nothing to gain from assuming malice, and there may be a lot to gain from assuming good faith.


 
Somehow I am ran out of good faith in human race, especially in people who have some kind of power... And Pope is one of them, for sure.


----------



## Outsider

The Vatican has had a constructive attitude towards Islam, lately. I guess that's the main reason why I have trouble believing that pope Benedict would attempt to be deliberately provocative.


----------



## natasha2000

Outsider said:


> The Vatican has had a constructive attitude towards Islam, lately. I guess that's the main reason why I have trouble believing that pope Benedict would attempt to be deliberately provocative.


 
The Vatican, yes. But not this Pope. The previous one. This one has just arrived and still hasn't shown much.


----------



## Outsider

natasha2000 said:


> The Vatican, yes. But not this Pope. The previous one. This one has just arrived and still hasn't shown much.


You spoke earlier of the former pope with respect. Well, it was John Paul II who put cardinal Ratzinger in the line of succession to himself. They saw more eye to eye than most people seem to realise. John Paul was not as progressive as myth has made him out to be, and perhaps Benedict is not as questionable as his lack of charisma has made him appear to be.
I can't say that I am a big fan of either pope, personally, but I don't doubt their intelligence for a minute. Given the current global situation, I think that an intelligent pope could not help but come to the conclusion that Catholicism has everything to gain from maintaining good relations with Islam, and nothing to gain from challenging it.


----------



## übermönch

Benedikt hails from *really *conservative/reactionary circles (that is why he was elected I assume. Pope Paul was just too liberal for your typical borgioesque  head-of-the-church.) and it is not his first _oddity_. Condemning terrorism _except_ on Israel, writing articles for _neonazi _ newspapers, Schuldverdrängung... nah, nothing can be surprising from _that_ pope.


----------



## natasha2000

Outsider said:


> I think that an intelligent pope could not help but come to the conclusion that Catholicism has everything to gain from maintaining good relations with Islam, and nothing to gain from challenging it.


 
I agree with you on this. 

I just gave my opinion, based onwhat I have heard and read about these two popes. Why John Paul II chose Ratzinger as his heir... I wouldn't know. But I know that Vatican is not spared of political intrigues, and maybe John Paul II had to do this, against his own will. I am just supposing things. Yes, he was not as progressive as it is said for him, but he was. And this one is said to be a very conservative and reactionary even before he became Pope. That is why I doubt John Paul elected him by his own free will. But even thinking this, I do not think John Paul was an angel. After all he was only human, too, and as someone said to Jack Lemmon in one very funny movie: Nobody is perfect... 

I do not try to contradict you, I am glad that there are people like you who still have faith in human beings. I simply cannot. Why? Well, it is enough to put TV news in the morning and wish you had never got up from the bed...


----------



## Outsider

He does seem to be a very conservative person, and I certainly disagree with many of his opinions. However, I see nothing especially provocative (at least, not openly so) in the speech that has apparently generated the controversy.


----------



## natasha2000

Outsider said:


> He does seem to be a very conservative person, and I certainly disagree with many of his opinions. However, I see nothing especially provocative (at least, not openly so) in the speech that has apparently generated the controversy.


 
I do. As I also see unnecessary provoking in those drawings. We all know what reactions can be expected. Why then to provoke? Both quoting and drawings represent *all *Muslims as terrorists and violent people. And we all know this is not truth. As I have always said, generalizing never brought anything good...


----------



## Outsider

Here's a different interpretation: Perhaps pope Benedict did not choose those examples because he shares all of emperor Manuel's views on Islam, but rather because he knew that many people in the audience he was addressing _do_ equate Islam with violence. So he used a story which he knew would grasp their attention easily. However, the moral he draws from the story is a little different from that, isn't it?


----------



## natasha2000

Outsider said:


> Here's a different interpretation: Perhaps pope Benedict did not choose those examples because he shares all of emperor Manuel's views on Islam, but rather because he knew that many people in the audience he was addressing _do_ equate Islam with violence. So he used a story which he knew would grasp their attention easily. However, the moral he draws from the story is a little different from that, isn't it?


 

Hmm.. Maybe. But then, he should have known that wide audience does not usually have so colorful imagination and is not able to grasp such hidden and fine metaphors as he would have wanted. Usually, masses have to be spoken directly or through very obvious methaphors, in order to understand what the speaker wanted to say.
Anyway, I don't see that "different" moral in his speech. I really don't, no matter how hard I try. But then, I am just a cynic, without any faith in a human being... So, I might be wrong, too...


----------



## ireney

I don't like what I have heard of this Pope (and I didn't like what I've heard of the previous one either) but note that I don't know more than what is usually discussed on the internet and I don't frequent sites in which any one might speak on their behalf so I can't condemn any of them (ever since I read how many of what we hear about Pope Alexander the 6th -Borgia- was pure slander I am a bit more reserved than usual in expressing my opinion about Popes).

In addition to not holding the Pope to any esteem (based on what I've heard) I am an atheist coming from an Orthodox background so I don't have any feelings of sympathy stemming from "tradition" (au contraire I should say).

I've browsed through his speech as presented in the link Outsider posted in post #10.

 What on Earth did he used this quote? The whole speech has to do with whether dehellenising the religion is good and the whether the "God is good" etc is a hellenic (Greek) influence or not etc. I bet other educated Greeks have said that "God is good" and so on and so forth so why use Manuel and what he said?

I wouldn't refer to one of the last desperate Emperors of a dying Empire shrunk and humiliated by a Muslim enemy.

That said, taken in context it isn't as bad as it sounds really (as I see it)


----------



## Cath.S.

Tsoman said:


> The Pope has rights too


Sorry, the Pope mostly have duties and a huge responsibility. You don't get yourself elected as the spiritual leader of millions of Catholics just to say any old thing that crosses your head.

And so that's not what the pope did. This was absolutely deliberate. I find it loathsome. 

*This is not what the world needs right now*. This is not being part of the solution, it is being part of the problem.

I must day that like übermönch, I am not surprised in the slightest, a lot of us expected that sort of antics from that man.


----------



## Tsoman

egueule said:


> Sorry, the Pope mostly have duties and a huge responsibility. You don't get yourself elected as the spiritual leader of millions of Catholics just to say any old thing that crosses your head.
> 
> And so that's not what the pope did. This was absolutely deliberate. I find it loathsome.
> 
> *This is not what the world needs right now*. This is not being part of the solution, it is being part of the problem.
> 
> I must day that like übermönch, I am not surprised in the slightest, a lot of us expected that sort of antics from that man.



I'm sorry, but the pope can say whatever the pope wants.

I'm of the opinion that most people who get offended by something non-personal so it so they can feel important. Maybe it makes them feel like they have something special to be offended about. Maybe it makes them feel like they are better than other people. I don't know. Maybe being offended helps muslims feel more like a community or a brotherhood, when they all get offended together. Everyone wants someone to hate.


----------



## Goerzer

The speach of the Pope was directed mainly to christian audience, to catholics and protestants, and only incidentally to islam, but the international medias, especially the neocon and pro-zionist ones focused only the part refered to islam because they want the Pope engaged in their clash of civilizations. The responsabily for all this mess is mainly of the "neoconnarderie". This is my opinion.


----------



## Nunty

Here is the full text of the pope's statement, translated into French. You may need to click on the link "*Discours du pape à l’Université de Ratisbonne". *You can find the text in other languages at the same site, and probably at vatican.org in the Press Office.

I haven't read it all yet, so I reserve comment.


----------



## Heba

Yesterday morning, when I was watching the news, I heard something like ''The Pope of the Vatican has offened Islam and Muslims''. I felt absolutely shocked, but I thought that one should get the whole story to get a better understanding.

After reading the quote in context, I find it offending, and I think that it was not smart to say something like that. I cannot find in his speech something that says that his view is contrary to the emperor's (and why would he quote a guy who was in war with Muslims ?, unless the Pope believes that he is in war with Muslims at large). Anyway, even if he did not believe in what the emperor said, he should not have used the quote. There must have been a million other ways to drive his point home.

At such a critical time, we constantly feel targeted for crimes we have not done. Unfortunately, the media in the west would pay attention to a speech by a terrorist, and would not care about the speech of mild Muslim scholars. The few terrorists are now the representatives of millions and millions of Muslims who are certainly not interested in that conflict , who simply care about nothing but practicing their religion and leading a peaceful life, and who find themselves every now and then forced to give explanations for the behaviour of a few. The majority-including me- are convinced that the Crusades have started once again at the hands of Bush and Blair who believe that Muslims are infidels, and thus there is no problem if they get killed, raped or subjected to all kinds of atrocities-even if civilians.

In an age like that, in which we are all dragged back to the Middle Ages- the Pope should think of the impact of his words on the world before he utters them.


----------



## natasha2000

Tsoman said:


> I'm sorry, but the pope can say whatever the pope wants.


If the pope has the right to say WHATEVER he wants, then why shouldn't  Muslims have the right to act WHATEVER they like?


----------



## Nunty

natasha2000 said:


> If the pope has the *right to say* WHATEVER he wants, then why shouldn't  Muslims have the *right to act* WHATEVER they like?


1. There is a quantum leap from saying to acting. I am currently in contact with a man who is considering suicide. He may _say_ all kinds of things; as long as he does not _act_ he is still alive.

2. I have now read the full text of the pope's remarks. I think he was unwise in using that citation and that he should have added some sort of... I forget the word in English. He should have put some distance between himself and that statement and added what his views actually are.

3. The present pope's views on Islam and Muslems can be seen clearly in his acts, just as with his predessor. 

4. Again, I think he was unwise in what he said. I also think there is some tendentious and willful misinterpretation going on.

5. I am a faithful Catholic and I believe in the doctrine of papal infallibility. That doctrine, however, does not extend to every single word and act of the pope. I think he made a mistake and should apologize for having hurt people by not being clear in his remarks.

6. Of course all terrorists are not Muslems! I personally know two who are or have been in prison for terrorist acts and neither is a Muslem. That is a very dangerous generalization to have made.


----------



## natasha2000

Nun-Translator said:


> 1. There is a quantum leap from saying to acting. I am currently in contact with a man who is considering suicide. He may _say_ all kinds of things; as long as he does not _act_ he is still alive.


 
Is it really necessary to say that I was referring to demonstrations, and NOT to terrorist acts? Is it???

By the way, not once I heard that the worst and most deathful weapon is not any weapon we know, but the WORD!


----------



## heidita

natasha2000 said:


> If the pope has the right to say WHATEVER he wants, then why shouldn't Muslims have the right to act WHATEVER they like?


Now that is really something else! Here, here!

Now _talking _is the same as _acting_, that's really something!


----------



## Nunty

Natasha, yes, it is necessary. I quoted your post in mine. You surely knew what you meant, but the reader did not necessarily. I did not.

But maybe this is the sterling example for the topic of this thread. Natasha was sure that she was clear; I apparently misunderstood. Can we draw a parallel here?

Natasha also said:





> By the way, not once I heard that the worst and most deathful weapon is not any weapon we know, but the WORD!


That is lovely rhetoric, but I received a spinal injury from a terrorist's bomb, not from even the most inflammatory speech. Of course, words shape our thoughts and our thoughts inform our actions, but I stand on what I said: there is quantum leap from saying to acting.


----------



## heidita

> "Show me just what Muhammad 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," Benedict quoted the emperor as saying.


 
Does anybody think that this _teaching_ is right?


> The pope neither explicitly endorsed nor denounced the emperor's words, but rather used them as a preface to a discussion of faith and reason. The Vatican said the pope did not intend the remarks to be offensive to


 
I wonder, why so frequently people get upset when someone puts into words what many people think.

It was quite clear that he used the words "to discuss faith and reason", why they should be beheld against him is above my understanding.

Personally I am not a catholic and I have often thought of the previous pope to be rather old-fashioned in his believes and thoughts. But isn't that his privilege? If you are a Pope you should actually defend those old fashioned laws, or not? I don't think this Pope is more conservative than the previous Pope. 

In any case, I do defend the right of anybody to say _anything_, even if this might be offensive, as the people have the same right to answer. In any case, "offense" is in the eye of the beholder. And t_alking_ is not the same as _acting._


----------



## heidita

Nun-Translator said:


> Natasha, yes, it is necessary. I quoted your post in mine. You surely knew what you meant, but the reader did not necessarily. I did not.


 
Neither did I.



> Natasha also said:That is lovely rhetoric, but I received a spinal injury from a terrorist's bomb, not from even the most inflammatory speech. Of course, words shape our thoughts and our thoughts inform our actions, but I stand on what I said: *there is quantum leap from saying to acting.*


 
This awful personal experience shows in the crudest way that _words_ are definitely not the same as _acts_.


----------



## heidita

> By the way, not once I heard that the worst and most deathful weapon is not any weapon we know, but the WORD!


 
A *deadly weapon*? Here, here!


----------



## LV4-26

Leaving aside the facts 
- that the Pope wasn't addressing the "World" but just a bunch of intellectuals
- that his quote of Manual II was only the starting point of his lecture and that he didn't make any other reference to it in the rest.



			
				The Pope quoting Manual II said:
			
		

> such as his [Mohammed's]command to spread by the sword the faith he preached".


Is that in the Qur'an or not? That's the whole issue.

If it is not, then the Pope and Manuel II can be considered guilty of (deliberate?) misinterpretation.

If it actually is in the Qur'an, then I'll put Heidita's point in a more "naïve", down-to-earth way : if the Pope didn't find anything objectionable in Islam, he would be a Muslim, wouldn't he?


----------



## natasha2000

heidita said:


> Now that is really something else! Here, here!
> 
> Now _talking _is the same as _acting_, that's really something!


I will just repeat:



> Is it really necessary to say that I was referring to demonstrations, and NOT to terrorist acts? Is it???
> 
> By the way, not once I heard that the worst and most deathful weapon is not any weapon we know, but the WORD!


----------



## cuchuflete

> Originally Posted by *The Pope quoting Manual II*
> such as his [Mohammed's]command to spread by the sword the faith he preached".
> 
> 
> 
> Is that in the Qur'an or not? That's the whole issue.
Click to expand...


I agree, on a purely academic basis, that this is an issue, if not the entire issue.  If that quote reflects the teachings of Islam and its holy book, then I'd be perplexed as to what the fuss is about.  

However, the quote stands out in a discussion of dehellenization of a religion.  It's not at all clear from the entire text of the Pope's speech why he decided to insert that bit.  His lack of comments on the quote also stands out.  As has been noted in this thread, he stated neither agreement nor disagreement with it.  That makes me wonder just why he included it.

I'd rather not speculate about motive.  Whatever the motive may have been, no matter how innocent and academic and logical it may have seemed when the speech was drafted, the 
result has been to give fuel to those who think they benefit from discord.


----------



## natasha2000

heidita said:


> A *deadly weapon*? Here, here!


 
Heidi, do I really have to remind you on Goebels's media machinery?

Those people who kill, are persuaded by words of their leaders that what they do, is ok.


----------



## Lugubert

heidita said:


> "Show me just what Muhammad 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," Benedict quoted the emperor as saying.
> 
> 
> 
> Does anybody think that this _teaching_ is right?
Click to expand...

The Qur'an doesn't think it is right; such a command is not anywhere in it. On the contrary, it states that there should be no compulsion in religion (2:256). The Pope tries no downplay this quote, saying that this is an early verse, when Muhammad was without power. Incorrect: Surah 2 is from the Medina years, when Muhammad already was the leader.
 
Spread by the sword? Look at the nations with the highest numbers of Muslims.
 
No. 1 is Indonesia. Which Muslim army went there?
 
Nos. 2-4 are India, Bangladesh and Pakistan. Muslims ruled India for about a thousand years. Today more than 80% of the population of India are non-Muslims. Not a very efficient sword there. No Muslim army was ever close to Bangladesh. I would have to look further to get solid facts on Pakistan, but I think the sword has little to do with today's situation.
 
It seems that Islam is the fastest growing religion in today's USA. It is in Europe. Which sword is forcing those people?
 
Never the less, the world would probably be more peaceful if all Christians and Muslims converted to Buddhism or Daoism.


----------



## LV4-26

I'd like to add something to alter the impression possibly given by my previous post.
The problem about the Pope's statement (and the reason why, all things considered, I think he shouldn't have uttered it) is that it's a gift to islamic terrorists. 
On the contrary, his previous quote of the Qur'an


> The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion".


would have been a support to moderate Muslims and one which I would strongly approve of.


----------



## heidita

Lugubert said:


> It seems that Islam is the fastest growing religion in today's USA. It is in Europe. Which sword is forcing those people?




Do you have any source for that?
Surprising!


----------



## natasha2000

Nun-Translator said:


> Natasha, yes, it is necessary. I quoted your post in mine. You surely knew what you meant, but the reader did not necessarily. I did not.
> 
> But maybe this is the sterling example for the topic of this thread. Natasha was sure that she was clear; I apparently misunderstood. Can we draw a parallel here?
> 
> Natasha also said:That is lovely rhetoric, but I received a spinal injury from a terrorist's bomb, not from even the most inflammatory speech. Of course, words shape our thoughts and our thoughts inform our actions, but I stand on what I said: there is quantum leap from saying to acting.


 
I am really sorry because of what happened to you, but those terrorists didin't born as terrorists. The became terrorists, thanks to some other people who spoke very nice and knew how to make them to believe in what they do - bring death to other person who is not like them is a good thing to do.
I feel very uncomfortable to discuss this with you, considering what you are, because I do respect other people's beliefs (even though I do not agree with them or do not share them), and I really do not want even try to convince you in what I believe, because I respect what you are.
Hope that this time I was clear enough, offense is the last thing I wanted.


----------



## natasha2000

LV4-26 said:


> Leaving aside the facts
> - that the Pope wasn't addressing the "World" but just a bunch of intellectuals
> 
> But he was heard by the World. Si even if his lecture was directed to a "bunch of intellectuals" it was NOT heard only by them. The reson is simple. He is a Pope, not some unknown "intellectual" too. Each position brings its share of responsabilities. Anf being a Pope has a lot of responsabilities.
> 
> If it actually is in the Qur'an, then I'll put Heidita's point in a more "naïve", down-to-earth way : if the Pope didn't find anything objectionable in Islam, he would be a Muslim, wouldn't he?
> Why it should be either this or that? Why cannot be some third, or fourth option? What about atheist? So if I don't find anything bad inone religion, Ishould necessarily embrace that religion? Why?


 

The thing is that this thread begins to look like many other threads that were talking about "who's better?" (which GenJen indicated in her post at the beginning of this thread). And I don't like it. Why cannot we leave out the question who'se right, and analyze the appropriatness of Pope's words, just for a change?


----------



## cuchuflete

I'm in no position to interpret the intention of the Pope's quotation.  The effect is obvious.

Here is what a Vatican spokesman had to say, which makes me wonder if the Vatican has any idea what the controversy is about, or where it stands on the topics:



> Asked by reporters about the papal text, Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, the Vatican spokesman, said the pope had no intention of giving "an interpretation of Islam as violent."
> 
> "I think everyone understands that even inside Islam there are many different positions and there are many positions that are not violent," Father Lombardi said. He noted that the pope's speech was primarily a historical analysis.


source


----------



## natasha2000

LV4-26 said:


> I'd like to add something to alter the impression possibly given by my previous post.
> The problem about the Pope's statement (and the reason why, all things considered, I think he shouldn't have uttered it) *is that it's a gift to islamic terrorists. *
> On the contrary, his previous quote of the Qur'an
> 
> would have been a support to moderate Muslims and one which I would strongly approve of.


 
Well... You've said in one sentence what I was trying to say in million posts. (And it seems I have done it pretty unsuccessfully).

It is not the issue if the Pope has the right or not to say whatever he wants. The reality is he mustn't. He gave a perfect reason to terrorists to continue their "holy war".


----------



## Cnaeius

Heba said:


> After reading the quote in context, I find it offending, and I think that it was not smart to say something like that.


Very friendly speaking, I would want to contest this selecting approach. It is never fair forgetting the core of a speech.


> I cannot find in his speech something that says that his view is contrary to the emperor's (and why would he quote a guy who was in war with Muslims ?, unless the Pope believes that he is in war with Muslims at large).


These entailments are not completely logic, it seems that there is the feeling that the Pope is a priori guilty. The speech was around the fact that using violence is denying God. Do we agree with this thesis? This is the first question. The pope has mentioned a fact happened around the *1400,* in which, yes, Islam is implicated. What relation does it have with Islam in 2006? Obviously I am talking about mild Islam.  I think it is not fair and dangerous forgetting that all religions have a *historical dimension. *Also Catholic Church did wrong things in the past. The former Pope, as example, admitted it and ufficially apologized on behalf of the Church.



> In an age like that, in which we are all dragged back to the Middle Ages- the Pope should think of the impact of his words on the world before he utters them.


On this I can agree with you.


----------



## Nunty

The Pope has issued a sort-of apology. I don't think he went far enough, but here is an account of it.


----------



## papillon

Nun-Translator said:


> I am a faithful Catholic and I believe in the doctrine of papal infallibility. That doctrine, however, does not extend to every single word and act of the pope. I think he made a mistake and should apologize for having hurt people by not being clear in his remarks.


I think papal infallability is actually at the core of this debate. You see, unlike most of us, you are learned in theology and cannonical law. I am quite confident that you can quote dissertations and treatise explaining precisely how a pope can be _infallable_ and yet _make mistakes_. This subtlety, however, is lost on most people, including myself. To an average person believing in infallability, infallable equals never making mistakes.

I am, actually, quite puzzled by this pope's speach. I read the whole text, and I can't find any good reason to inlude that quote into the text. Even though the passage was supposed to introduce the topic of faith and reason, I found the speech to be devoid of much connection to the musings of 15th century Bysantine emperor. The result, I'm afraid, to most people appears along the lines of:

_ ".. I used to teach here, you know, at this University...in 1959... those were good times!...Let's see, ah yes, as Manuel II Paleologus said in 1402 Islam breeds violence...hmm, was there something else I was going to say on this topic...no, can't think of anything... all right then, moving right along let us now shift gears and talk about the interplay between faith and Greek philosophy..."_

I guess the Pope is simply held to a higher standard, both by catholics who may look to him for guidance and by non-catholics who view him as representing the Catholic church, an perhaps even Chrstianity at large.


----------



## Nunty

papillon said:


> I think papal infallability is actually at the core of this debate. You see, unlike most of us, you are learned in theology and cannonical law. I am quite confident that you can quote dissertations and treatise explaining precisely how a pope can be _infallable_ and yet _make mistakes_. This subtlety, however, is lost on most people, including myself. To an average person believing in infallability, infallable equals never making mistakes...


I don't know if you are being sarcastic or asking a question, so I will just answer as best I can and will ignore the insulting tone of your post.

First off, I am not learned in theology and canon law, but by virtue of my formation as a nun and my doctorate in philosophy of religion I do have a broader knowledge in both areas than many other people.

The doctrine of papal infallibility applies only when he is speaking _ex cathedra_; that is, making an official pronouncement on matters of faith or morals that is in accord with the _Magisterium_, or teaching authority and traditions of the Church. It does not mean that he cannot make mistakes.

A pope can read a road map wrong; he can click Alt+F4 when he really doesn't want to, he can make stupid or ill-advised remarks. He might even write sarcastic and insulting messages at times.

The doctrine of papal infallibility is most explicitly not the same as "never making mistakes". I hope this is now more clear that it was when I first mentioned. 

Please feel free to ask questions. Don't be ashamed of your ignornance; we all have to learn.


----------



## papillon

Sister Claire, please accept my sincerest apologies if my tone appeared to be rude or insulting. Perhaps this is just a misunderstanding. I was not being facetious.


Nun-Translator said:


> I don't know if you are being sarcastic or asking a question, so I will just answer as best I can and will ignore the insulting tone of your post.


I was doing neither of those things! Through your many woderful posts, I have learned a great deal. So naturally, given your occupation and your enlightening insights, I surmised  that your understanding of all topic realted to the Church is far greater than that of myself or an average person. As it happens, a lot of my friends at this moment are young Dominican friars and nuns (long story...), and thanks to them and to your posts I sort of understand the concept of infallability.


Nun-Translator said:


> my doctorate in philosophy of religion I do have a broader knowledge in both areas than many other people.


Exactly! The point I was trying to make, is that while _the scholars_ know the difference between infallability and not making mistakes, many people don't. Within reason, for most people pressing the wrong key on the keyboard and delivering a speech with (potentially ?) contraversial interpretations is not the same thing.


----------



## Brioche

Lugubert said:


> It seems that Islam is the fastest growing religion in today's USA. It is in Europe. Which sword is forcing those people?


 
In increase in the number of Muslims in the USA and Europe is the result of immigration and reproduction.
It is not the result of conversion.


----------



## natasha2000

papillon said:


> Exactly! The point I was trying to make, is that while _the scholars_ know the difference between infallability and not making mistakes, many people don't.


 
I didn't. And I am an ordinary, atheist person, therefore I cannot possibly have this knowledge about the peculiar religious meaning of the word _infallability_ applied to Pope. For me, infallability is what the word says - not making mistakes. Unmistakeable.

So if I happened to mention something in this context, I would be also *unconsciosly* "insulting" a religious person. The thing is - will that religious person be able to see my ignorance, or just malice in my words? the answer is: all depends on that person.


----------



## Brioche

LV4-26 said:


> I'd like to add something to alter the impression possibly given by my previous post.
> The problem about the Pope's statement (and the reason why, all things considered, I think he shouldn't have uttered it) is that *it's a gift to islamic terrorists. *


 
Saying that it is a gift to_ Islamic terrorists_ is an admission that there are terrorists who can claim to be Muslims. 

Now if Islam is a religion of peace, and without compulsion, .....
I'll let you all do your own "reductio ad absurdum" proof.


----------



## Brioche

natasha2000 said:


> I am an ordinary, atheist person, therefore I cannot possibly have this knowledge about the peculiar religious meaning of the word _infallability_ applied to Pope. For me, infallability is what the word says - not making mistakes. Unmistakeable.


 
Would it not be wise to acquire the knowledge of the meaning of the word, and the concept, before you start to comment on it?

Comments coming from a position of _complete ignorance_ are less than worthless.


----------



## natasha2000

Brioche said:


> Would it not be wise to acquire the knowledge of the meaning of the word, and the concept, before you start to comment on it?


 
Hasn't ever happened to you that you are certain of having a knowledge on something and then discover that it is not the case? Or you are pretending to say that you are infallible, too?

I, at least, am not ashamed to admit it.



> Comments coming from a position of _complete ignorance_ are less than worthless.


 
This does not reffer to me, although it was meant to be, because I was not the one who made the "infallability" remark.


----------



## Nunty

Papillon, thank you for your gracious apology. I apology for my oversensitivity. If you look at my profile you will see that I live in Jerusalem. In Nablus, not so far from here, two churches were fire-bombed today. I accept that for most of the people in this forum this is an interesting cultural and intellectual discussion, but for some of us (Moslems and Christians) it hits much closer to home.

I think I was almost too literal there.


----------



## Brioche

Nun-Translator said:


> Papillon, thank you for your gracious apology. I apology for my oversensitivity. If you look at my profile you will see that I live in Jerusalem. In Nablus, not so far from here, two churches were fire-bombed today.


 
Do you believe that the fire-bombing could be linked to the Pope's lecture?

A quote from the website of the ABC [Australian Broadcasting Corporation] 
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200609/s1742400.htm
_Middle Eastern leaders and analysts have warned of a potentially violent backlash in the region to the Pope's remarks implicitly linking Islam to violence._ 

It would rather prove the point, wouldn't it?


----------



## PedroAznar

Brioche said:


> Would it not be wise to acquire the knowledge of the meaning of the word, and the concept, before you start to comment on it?
> 
> Comments coming from a position of _complete ignorance_ are less than worthless.



_Infallible_
_ 
Etymology:    Middle English, from Medieval Latin __infallibilis, from Latin __in- + Late Latin __fallibilis fallible
*1* *:* incapable of error *Unerring*   <an _ _infallible memory>
*2* *:* not liable to mislead, deceive, or disappoint  *:Certain*   <an __infallible
*3* *:* incapable of error in defining doctrines touching faith or morals_

Papal infallibility came at a time when the Pope had lost control over his temporal realm (the Papal States) so (according to some) the authority was transferred to the spiritual realm. There is no jusification (as far as I'm aware) for it in the teachings of Christ or in the Bible.


----------



## ireney

Brioche there would be a backlash even if the Pope had said something like "those Muslims that are terrorists are sinners by either religion". While such a remark would not in any way offend Islam the terrorists would be offended.

By the way, I _think_ it was Hebba who mentioned it but I am not sure: The fact that this sutra is from the time Mohamed was in Medina, it doesn't necessarily means that it was from the time he had a lot of power .  (I don't want to start a comparative theology argument here, but I thought I'd mention that.


May I also note that discussing whether the Papal infallibility is, tomy mind, a discussion that belongs in this thread? Whether right or wrong, whether based on the Bible or not, the fact remains that the Pope is considered infalible _only_ when talking "from his seat", "ex cathedra".


----------



## beclija

In my opinion, it is the duty of every thinking person to be at least as much or more self-critical than critical towards others. In German I would say "vor der eigenen Haustüre kehren" - or "čistiti svoju avliju" in Serbian (edit: I think you can say it in the same way in English: "to clean your own yard"). So if really all he wanted to say was the issue at hand without any specific reference to Islam, I personally would find it more convincing if he had picked an example from the history of Catholicism, and these are easy to come by, just think of the cruisades or colonialism. The second thing is that even if "infallability" does not mean he cannot make a mistake, he is speaking not only as a "placeholder of Christ" but also - and more importantly for someone who is not a practicing Catholic - as head of the largest religious organisation of the world, in the name of a thousand million Catholics. Although I am not practicing and in fact not a member of the church, as someone who kind of grew up in a Catholic tradition I find it, to say the least, embarassing that someone - anyone, it would not make a difference if a non-secular person, say a politician of my country - says these things _in my name_.

I think we can argue about wether or not the reactions are _appropriate_, but in my opinion they are clearly _understandable_. And, ireney, maybe terrorists would be offended, but do you actually think that everyone who finds the Pope's comment outragious is a terrorist themselves? No way you make me believe that...

Thanks for listening.


----------



## Cath.S.

Tsoman said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, but the pope can say whatever the pope wants.


What sort of an argument is that? Sure, we *can *all say what we want. And take the consequences. I *could *call you names for what you just answered. But I *won't *because I would not like the *consequences*. This is what we call reason: thinking abouit the effect our words are going to have when we open our mouth, especially_ in public_.


----------



## ireney

beclija 

No, I didn't mean that. I am always trying to find the middle so to speak (too much of ancient Greek philosophy I'm afraid but since I am not even religious I guess it's ok  ).

Now, in a previous post I've already said that I can't understand why he would quote one of last Emperors of an "empire" shrunk and humiliated by a Muslim enemy. 
That said and since almost everyone seems dedicated to saying how bad, bad, bad this quote was, I thought I'd mention that we should see things from all angles.

Yes, he shouldn't have said that. Not in this particular context at least. Because of his position and as a well-educated, thinking man, he should have been more careful. 
At least careful of his wording. If he had quoted Manuel Paleologos and then said something like "When I read that it got me thinking blah blah blah" it would be perfectly acceptable (after all Manuel Paleologos was a very well educated man, a scholar worth reading to my mind).

However it's not as if the protests and possible backlash can be blamed in their entirety to the _particular_ comment according to my opinion.

If you want my opinion, very few would ever read this speech if no one had protested. In fact I believe only scholars and a few others would. Most people's eyes would have glazed over before reaching that part.


----------



## Cath.S.

For goodness sake, fellow linguists, historical context is everything!


----------



## Maja

BBC: ''*Pope Benedict XVI has said he is sorry that a speech in which he referred to Islam has offended Muslims.*  In a statement read out by a senior Vatican official, the Pope said he respected Islam and hoped Muslims would understand the true sense of his words...

...Reading the statement, new Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone said the Pope's position on Islam was in line with Vatican teaching that the Church 'esteems Muslims, who adore the only God'. 
'The Holy Father is very sorry that some passages of his speech may have sounded offensive to the sensibilities of Muslim believers,' the statement said."


----------



## Outsider

ireney said:


> Now, in a previous post I've already said that I can't understand why he would quote one of last Emperors of an "empire" shrunk and humiliated by a Muslim enemy.





			
				Benedict XVI said:
			
		

> I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by Professor Theodore Khoury (Münster) of part of the dialogue carried on - perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara - by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both.



*Cuchuflete* wrote in the previous page that pope Benedict neither endorsed nor repudiated emperor Manuel II's words. I think that's a little inaccurate. Benedict clearly endorses some of the words, namely the idea that Christianity is rooted on reason. That's the subject of his lecture, and it's all he ever endorses in it.


----------



## ireney

egueule said:


> For goodness sake, fellow linguists, historical context is everything!




Historical context? I don't think anyone's blaming the (late some centuries now)  Emperor of the Easter Roman Empire (a.k.a. Byzantine Empire) Manuel Paleologus for saying what he said. 
We're not even arguing whether there was any justification or not in saying what he said in that time and age.

The Pope however lives today. I think his comments should reflect that. The man did say that he is sorry that his comments were considered offensive. However they are to be judged contemporarily anyway.


Outsider my comment still stands. I can't see the reason he chose that quote and worded things the way he did.


----------



## heidita

natasha2000 said:


> He gave a perfect reason to terrorists to continue their "holy war".


 
I sincerely hope that people do not think like you. 

If words uttered by _anybody_ "give a perfect reason to terrorists" to continue killing we will never have hope that terrorism will ever stop( which it probably won't anyway).

I don't know how *anybody *can think that _words, offensive or not,_ are reason enough to kill.


----------



## ireney

natasha2000 said:


> He gave a perfect reason to terrorists to continue their "holy war".



Anyone who claims that whatever someone said is a good enough reason to continue "holy war" will continue regardless.

I could claim, following the same kind of logic, that he gave them the perfect reason to terrorists to stop their "holy war" to prove him wrong. 

Both arguments are wrong.


----------



## LV4-26

Brioche said:


> Do you believe that the fire-bombing could be linked to the Pope's lecture?


Yes and no. Violent people will seize any opportunity to exert their violence. But their supposed "anger" can only be fake : on the contrary, they should be pleased by the Pope's words. 


> It would rather prove the point, wouldn't it?


Yes and no. It proves that some violent minds can interpret the Qur'an in a way that justifies their violence and still "_claim to be Muslims_" (Brioche's post on top of the page).

Exactly as the inquisitors once interpreted the Bible in a way that justified their own violence and still "claimed to be Christians".

The problem is that when Benedict mentionned "[Mohammed]'s command to spread to spread by the sword the faith he preached", he didn't refer to any particular surah, and didn't quote any particular words. Hence, we're unable to say whether those words were open to interpretation, and to what kind of interpretation.

Obvioulsy, in all holy books, there are
- passages that contradict one another
- passages that can be interpreted one way or another
Like this one, for instance


> _Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. (Matthew 10:34)_



I still hold that it was un unfortunate move from Benedict XVI. Not because of the possible offense but because it weakens the position of the moderate Muslims. What he's saying basically amounts to suggesting they're wasting their time, that only those who interpret the Qur'an in a violent way are interpreting it correctly. Indeed, what he's saying can be understood as : "moderate Muslims are basing their beliefs on an "invalid" surah _(no compulsion in religion)_, because it was "written at the wrong time".

It's unfortunate because the millions of moderate Muslim (the majority of Muslims, don't forget, and also the major part of the victims of terrorism) desperately need support. Moreover, we, the rest of the world, desperatly need them to be strong.


----------



## Outsider

My apologies if someone has already linked to this:



> As for the opinion of the Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus which he quoted during his Regensburg talk, the Holy Father did not mean, nor does he mean, to make that opinion his own in any way. He simply used it as a means to undertake - in an academic context, and as is evident from a complete and attentive reading of the text - certain reflections on the theme of the relationship between religion and violence in general, and to conclude with a *clear and radical rejection of the religious motivation for violence, from whatever side it may come*.


----------



## heidita

natasha2000 said:


> Heidi, do I really have to remind you on Goebels's media machinery?


 
Why you have seen fit to remind _me_ of Goebbels who has no saying in this at all is above me. Why not talk about your own country?


----------



## natasha2000

heidita said:


> Why you have seen fit to remind _me_ of Goebbels who has no saying in this at all is above me. Why not talk about your own country?


 
I have no intention to offend, it is just a unfortunate coincidence that you are a German and Goebels was a German, too. I said this only because I was answering to your post. I would have said the same to anyone here. I apologize, it was a rather unthouthful wording.
Yes, we can talk about my country, too. As a matter of fact, you got a perfect example, and closer one than nazis. The war in my country is a perfect example on how thwe WORD is the most powerful weapon. The media manipulation of Miloshevic machinery superated even a master of manipulation, Goebels.

I could write in detail and explain how *the word* made so many people to convert themselves in killing machines, but I am afraid I would be off topic in this thread.


----------



## beclija

Kao što sam rekao, ajmo svak' čistit svoju avliju. 
But you're right, there is one thing that the recent history of your country has in common with the present attacks of islamophobia that probably lack in most other potential examples: that it was fuelled largely if not entirely by irrational  _fear _on all sides.


----------



## Cath.S.

Ireney said:
			
		

> The Pope however lives today. I think his comments should reflect that.


Ireney this is exactly my point, and I was talking about today as part of history. History is not limited to the past. History is also what goes on today, I should have made myself clearer.


			
				tsoman said:
			
		

> yea, anyone who takes themself or their beliefs too seriously. It's all really really funny to watch


I don't find it amusing in the sightest when I know it could lead us to more wars and hatred.


----------



## natasha2000

beclija said:


> Kao što sam rekao, ajmo svak' čistit svoju avliju.
> But you're right, there is one thing that the recent history of your country has in common with the present attacks of islamophobia that probably lack in most other potential examples: that it was fuelled largely if not entirely by irrational _fear _on all sides.


 
I would rather say irrational hate on all sides. Hate provoked by very well used and manipulated words.


----------



## beclija

Yes, sure, but if you see video tapes from some nineties television shows, I think that the hate itself didn't come out of nowhere but was again grounded on fears. I think it was no coincidence that the Bosniaks where referred to as "Turci" but had the clear purpose of evoking feelings of centuries-long subjugation being reinstalled. Of course, that's still a case of manipulating with words.


----------



## natasha2000

beclija said:


> Yes, sure, but if you see video tapes from some nineties television shows, I think that the hate itself didn't come out of nowhere but was again grounded on fears. I think it was no coincidence that the Bosniaks where referred to as "Turci" but had the clear purpose of evoking feelings of centuries-long subjugation being reinstalled. Of course, that's still a case of manipulating with words.


 
Yes, Muslims were called Turci, and Croats were called ustashe, and Serbs were called chetnici. All sides had some unhealed wounds from the past. But this is not the point, and for sure it is not the topic of this thread. The point is that all that fear and later hate, was encouraged by WORDS. *So much about the claim that words cannot kill...*


----------



## .   1

I find the words of The Pope to be funny but not funny ha ha or a wry smile funny or positively funny in any way.
I find the concept of The Pope to be using the words of the last Ruler of a dying Eastern Roman Empire surrounded by an ultimately successful enemy who was Muslim to be funny peculiar.
The Pope has the nerve to criticise Islam because *some* hoodlums who claim to be Muslim are carrying on just like the Christian Crusaders carrying The Papal Banner and with the promise of absolution were doing at or about the same time that the quoted words were uttered.
There is a real black humour in that darkly complete circle.

.,,


----------



## Brioche

beclija said:


> I think we can argue about whether or not the reactions are _appropriate_, but in my opinion they are clearly _understandable_.
> Thanks for listening.


 
IMHO, the actions are neither appropriate, nor understandable.

_A ... cleric .. has called for Muslims to “hunt down” and kill Pope Benedict XVI for his controversial comments about Islam ..._ 
_“Whoever offends our Prophet Mohammed should be killed on the spot by the nearest Muslim,” [Sheikh Abubukar Hassan] Malin,... told worshippers at a mosque in southern Mogadishu._ 
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/somali-cleric-calls-for-popes-death/2006/09/16/1158334739295.html

_ "Kataab Ashbal Al Islam Al Salafi," (Islamic Salafist Boy Scout Battalions). This group threatens to kill *all Christians* in Iraq if the Pope does not apologize in three days in front of the whole world to Mohammed_.
http://www.aina.org/news/20060916154058.htm
Even Protestants and Orthodox, who reject the authority of the Pope?

Five churches throughout the West Bank were attacked by Palestinians wielding guns and firebombs.
Firebombings left black scorch marks on the walls and windows of Nablus’ *Anglican* and *Greek Orthodox* churches. At least five firebombs hit the *Anglican* church and its door was later set ablaze. http://www.judeoscope.ca/breve.php3?id_breve=2604

Now tell me, what is understandable in bombing *non-*Catholic Churches because of something the Pope said?

Let us imagine that one of those US right-wing neo-con fundamentalist Christians had made an equivalent comment about killing anyone who did not show proper respect for Jesus Chirst. For example, the makers of South Park; or Andres Serrano, who put a crucifix in a container of his own urine and called it art; or countless other examples.
Would you be all understanding then?


----------



## natasha2000

Brioche said:


> IMHO, the actions are neither appropriate, nor understandable.
> 
> _A ... cleric .. has called for Muslims to “hunt down” and kill Pope Benedict XVI for his controversial comments about Islam ..._
> _“Whoever offends our Prophet Mohammed should be killed on the spot by the nearest Muslim,” [Sheikh Abubukar Hassan] Malin,... told worshippers at a mosque in southern Mogadishu._
> http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/somali-cleric-calls-for-popes-death/2006/09/16/1158334739295.html
> 
> _"Kataab Ashbal Al Islam Al Salafi," (Islamic Salafist Boy Scout Battalions). This group threatens to kill *all Christians* in Iraq if the Pope does not apologize in three days in front of the whole world to Mohammed_.
> http://www.aina.org/news/20060916154058.htm
> Even Protestants and Orthodox, who reject the authority of the Pope?
> 
> Five churches throughout the West Bank were attacked by Palestinians wielding guns and firebombs.
> Firebombings left black scorch marks on the walls and windows of Nablus’ *Anglican* and *Greek Orthodox* churches. At least five firebombs hit the *Anglican* church and its door was later set ablaze. http://www.judeoscope.ca/breve.php3?id_breve=2604
> 
> Now tell me, what is understandable in bombing *non-*Catholic Churches because of something the Pope said?
> 
> Let us imagine that one of those US right-wing neo-con fundamentalist Christians had made an equivalent comment about killing anyone who did not show proper respect for Jesus Chirst. For example, the makers of South Park; or Andres Serrano, who put a crucifix in a container of his own urine and called it art; or countless other examples.
> Would you be all understanding then?


 
The Pope should have known better. I would be really surprised if you said that these things were not expected after the Pope's speech.
Yes, Pope has right to say whatever he wants, but he must be aware of the consequences, since he will not be the only one who will suffer them. More than once we have seen how muslim extremists react to such wording. So, we are not talking about here if Muslim reaction was in measure or overreaction. We all know it is overreaction. Neither is the question if fundamental Chirstian would do such a thing. We are NOT discussing here who's religion is better, or more violent. The question here is: Should Pope have said what he said? Sholdn't he have acted a little bit more wisely?


----------



## heidita

natasha2000 said:


> *So much about the claim that words cannot kill...*


 
They can't.


----------



## heidita

> I think we can argue about whether or not the reactions are _appropriate_, but in my opinion they are clearly _understandable_.
> Thanks for listening.


 
What do you mean by _understandable_? _Understandable_ by whom? By you?


----------



## heidita

Brioche said:


> IMHO, the actions are neither appropriate, nor understandable.
> 
> _A ... cleric .. has called for Muslims *to “hunt down”* and kill Pope Benedict XVI for his controversial comments about Islam ..._
> 
> _"Kataab Ashbal Al Islam Al Salafi," (Islamic Salafist Boy Scout Battalions). This group threatens to kill *all Christians* in Iraq if the Pope does not apologize in three days in front of the whole world to Mohammed_.
> 
> Five churches throughout the West Bank were attacked by Palestinians *wielding guns and firebombs.*
> 
> Now tell me, what is understandable in bombing *non-*Catholic Churches because of something the Pope said?


 
It is by no means _understandable_ to bomb catholic churches either!

I agree with somebody on this site, who said that the Pope has given, unwillingly, I am sure, an "excuse" to extremists to go on killing. 



> Let us imagine that one of those US right-wing neo-con fundamentalist Christians had made an equivalent comment about killing anyone who did not show proper respect for Jesus Chirst. For example, the makers of South Park; or Andres Serrano, who put a crucifix in a container of his own urine and called it art; or countless other examples.
> Would you be all understanding then?


 
Yes, please, let's! Like Madonna using the crucifix in one of her shows.
Very understandable indeed.


----------



## Abu Bishr

In this post I wish to take the discussion to a more academic level.

However, before I start the main part of my post, I would like to make the following comments which I'll put in square brackets which I'll keep separate from the more academic discusion.

[One way to understand how Muslims feel about the Pope's comments (emotionally, that is) is to ask ourselves (as either devout Christians or Jews) how would we feel if we substitute "Muhammad" for "Jesus" or "Moses" in Manuel II's statement "_Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread the sword by the faith he preached_ " or a similar statement. Off course we are going to find it offensive as we are emotionally and religiously attached to these names. Now, Muslims are also emotionally and religiously attached to these two names as both constitute Great Prophets in the Islamic Tradition. Their names are literally scattered in the Quran, and in all of them they are mentioned only positively and respectfully. So, while it is easy not to see other people's point of view because one is not emotionally and religiously attached to something, one should try and refrain at least from using disrespectful and offensive terms to describe a religious ocon or personality of the other or even quoting such terms without comment, as silence is construed as approval in such a context.]

Now, for the more academic discussion:

The Pope premised almost his whole speech on the views of two personalities which he took (as it were) as being representative of Christianity and Islam respectively. The first comment by a certain Cristian Emperor, Manuel II, who maintained fighting a war as being contrary to God's nature or in this case spreading one's faith with the sword as being contrary to reason and logic, since doing so implies that one's faith is not rational or logical such that people have to be - as it were - forced by the sword to relinquish their beliefs to adopt those of another. Since Christianity was not spread by the sword or though by waging wars it and yet people still accepted it, it follows that Christianity must be more rational or logical than Islam, as the former won followers on the basis of rational conviction whilst the latter at the point of the sword.

Further, to prove his thesis, the Pope quotes a certain Muslim scholar, Ibn Hazm, as saying that God is not bound by the rational rules and laws of humans with the result that God, according to Islam, can order something that is totally irrational and illogical according to human standards, like spreading religion by forceful due to such a religion lacking the rational or logical means to convince people embracing a different religion.

Now, here I'd like to ask two questions:

(1) Are these two people Manuel II and Ibn Hazm really representative of their respective faiths?
(2) Is Islam irrational and illogical and Christianity rational and logical.


I hope to see a fruitful discussion ensuing based on these points, rather than emotional non-academic outbursts and slander. I, personally, feel offended when a religious icon of mine gets insulted or villified but I believe that it's important that we act with self-restraint and in a controlled manner so as to put an end to the stereotypes that are created by the media based on the actions of Muslims who have not imbibed the proper Islamic conduct. Any muslim educated in Islam knows that Prophet Muhammad never ever behaved in an impulsive uncontrolled manner. Rather he would assess the situation in a very calm manner and then pronounced his judgement also in a very calm and controlled manner. A bedoin once entered a mosque and urinated in it for which the Prophet Muhammad's companions wanted to take him to task. The Prophet stopped them and said: "Bring a bucket of water and just pour it over the spot" and that was the end of the situation. This kind of response can be found throughout his life. He also used to tell many a companion of his: "Don't get angry" (three times), and should one get angry to wash himself off with water so as to cool him down. He also said: "Gentleness is not in something except that it beautifies and it is not taken out from something except that it scars and mars it". It is reported also in an Islamic tradition that Jesus and his disciples once passed by a foul-smelling casrcass, and one of them said: "What a foul smell!" and Jesus said: "But look at its beautiful white teeth". What is the point here? The point is to try and force oneself to see the positive rather than the negative, and that that is a choice that people make in life.

Sorry for digressing towards the end, and I don't expect my co-religionists to necessarily accept my latter statements. So are we up for a really fruitful and productive discussion of some of the points raised here?


----------



## Brioche

natasha2000 said:


> The question here is: Should Pope have said what he said? Sholdn't he have acted a little bit more wisely?


 
Is this a correct summation of your position?
Offending Muslims is to be condemned because Muslims will murder indiscrimately if they feel slighted.


----------



## PedroAznar

Brioche said:


> Is this a correct summation of your position?
> Offending Muslims is to be condemned because Muslims will murder indiscrimately if they feel slighted.



Who's being murdered indiscriminatly? Agreed that some reaction has been completely over the top BUT the pope should have shown a little bit more acumen when commenting on the precepts of other religions knowing the current situation in the world and knowing Muslim feeling on "insults" to Mohammad and their religion.

That's all. Now I believe he's apologized. So everyone should (hopefully) drop it.


----------



## natasha2000

Brioche said:


> Is this a correct summation of your position?
> Offending Muslims is to be condemned because Muslims will murder indiscrimately if they feel slighted.


 
I think I have said enough and clear enough in this thread, so one with a little of brain can deduce about my position.

You can think whatever you want, but please, do not think for me, nor draw any conclusions for me. Do it for yourself.

EDIT: Another thing. If he himself thought he did the right thing, then why on Erth would he apologize??????


----------



## Nunty

For what it's worth, Natasha, I also think the Holy Father's words were ill-advised. I said so in the message I posted after I read the whole (very long!) text. I think he is still a trainee-Pope and forgot that he is not just the old professor speaking to former students and colleagues. I think his advisors should have had him on a tighter leash. I am very glad that he apologized, and I'm not sure the apology is well-worded, either.

However, I do not think that what he said merited the violent demonstrations, the fire-bombing of churches, men with kefiyyas wrapped around their faces brandishing of weapons in the streets.

We live in such a complex reality.


----------



## natasha2000

Nun-Translator said:


> For what it's worth, Natasha, I also think the Holy Father's words were ill-advised. I said so in the message I posted after I read the whole (very long!) text. I think he is still a trainee-Pope and forgot that he is not just the old professor speaking to former students and colleagues. I think his advisors should have had him on a tighter leash. I am very glad that he apologized, and I'm not sure the apology is well-worded, either.
> 
> However, I do not think that what he said merited the violent demonstrations, the fire-bombing of churches, men with kefiyyas wrapped around their faces brandishing of weapons in the streets.
> 
> We live in such a complex reality.


 

I agree with you, completely. Maybe I just did not know to express myself better.
But the thing is that maybe those bombing could have been avoided if he had been advised a little bit better.
I say, if someone is crazy would you ask from him reasonable thinking, or you will act according to the knowledge on how his mind works, in order to avoid a greater disaster? Would you be wiser or you would try to bring to sense someone who proved so many times uncapable of such a thing?


----------



## Outsider

Abu Bishr said:


> Now, here I'd like to ask two questions:
> 
> (1) Are these two people Manuel II and Ibn Hazm really representative of their respective faiths?
> (2) Is Islam irrational and illogical and Christianity rational and logical.


I would rather discuss two other questions:

- Did pope Benedict ever say that Manuel II and Ibn Hazm (actually, not Ibn Hazm, but an anonymous Persian with whom the emperor was speaking) were representative of Christianity and Islam, respectively, in his lecture?

- Did he ever say that Islam is irrational in his lecture?

In my opinion, the answer to both these questions is "No". His words have been distorted by people who wish to manipulate the masses.


----------



## Alxmrphi

ArtVanderlay said:


> Abu Bishr said:
> 
> 
> 
> In this post I wish to take the discussion to a more academic level.
> 
> You may have wanted to take the discussion to a more academic level but you've missed my point: no other religions go on a rampage as yours do when someone even slightly makes a comment that is disagreed with. Churches burned, a nun killed. They seem to thrive on hatred. Imagine what would happen if one of your religious people were killed? I hate to think of the repercussion. Muslims seem to have no control and no respect for others. Academic or not - this is the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am starting to really believe this point gradually even more every day.
Click to expand...


----------



## Nunty

Sorry, I didn't hear that. Where was a nun killed?


----------



## GenJen54

I just looked it up. According to new sources, an Italian nun, her bodyguard and a hospital worker were gunned down in a hospital near Mogadishu, Somalia.  According to THIS news story (Associated Press), at this point, it is NOT CLEAR whether this attack was directly related to the Pope's comments.  I would offer that Somalia, as well as several other north African countries, are in the midst of great political strife and can be rather violent places to live, regardless of what the Pope says.

It is true that many Muslims seem easily incenses when these types of things occur. This anger is not one that just started today, or yesterday. This is the result of years of oppressive action against Islam and many of its followers that are mostly-politically motivated and have little to do with the RELIGION at all. 

General judgments are rarely helpful. They are even less so on these forums, where we have many Muslim friends and contributors.


----------



## Alxmrphi

GenJen54 said:


> I just looked it up. According to new sources, an Italian nun, her bodyguard adn a hospital worker were gunned down in a hospital near Mogadishu, Somalia, which is not exactly a peaceful place to begin with.
> 
> According to THIS news story (Associated Press), at this point, it is NOT CLEAR whether this attack was directly related to the Pope's comments.
> 
> It is true that many Muslims seem easily incenses when these types of things occur. This anger is not one that just started today, or yesterday. This is the result of years of oppressive action against Islam and many of its followers that are mostly-politically motivated and have little to do with the RELIGION at all.
> 
> General judgments are rarely helpful. They are even less so on these forums, where we have many Muslim friends and contributors.



But Gen, we aren't critising all Muslims, a muslim who comes here is like any of us, is totally outside of the scope of this conversation (in my opinion), although it reflects on their religion, we are talking about the aggressive protesters, who think if their religion is critised, they will somehow make it all better by doing violent things and portray their religion to the millions of people who watch the news, as exactly that, violent.

I hope no Muslim is offended who comes here and who doesn't see the need to rally and go red in the face with anger over what the Pope said.


----------



## Outsider

If you are not talking about all Muslims, how come what aggressive protesters do reflects on their religion?
Anyway, some people have tried to blame Islam, as usual.


----------



## ArtVanderlay

Nun-Translator said:


> Sorry, I didn't hear that. Where was a nun killed?



MOGADISHU, Somalia -- An Italian nun was shot dead at a hospital by Somali gunmen Sunday, hours after a leading Muslim cleric condemned Pope Benedict XVI for his remarks on Islam and violence.


----------



## ArtVanderlay

It is true that many Muslims seem easily incenses when these types of things occur. This anger is not one that just started today, or yesterday. This is the result of years of oppressive action against Islam.

Oh, come on now.  Time to get that chip of their shoulders. With all that's supposedly in the koran against killing, it's amazing that so much in done in the name of it.


----------



## PedroAznar

*"Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again"

*Things would be so much better if everyone, Chrisitian and Muslim alike, could live by these words.


----------



## Alxmrphi

Outsider said:


> If you are not talking about all Muslims, how come what aggressive protesters do reflects on their religion?
> Anyway, some people have tried to blame Islam, as usual.



Oh come on! It has everything to do with their religion, the reason they are protesting is taking a stand FOR their religion about a comment made ABOUT their religion. If not all Muslims are upset and acting like this, then we shouldn't talk about ALL Muslims, according to you, does that make this NOT about Islam or Muslim? Of course not!


----------



## ArtVanderlay

PedroAznar said:


> *"Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again"
> 
> *Things would be so much better if everyone, Chrisitian and Muslim alike, could live by these words.



Too right. Tell it to the muslim fundamentalists... And how about:
Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.

That's it for me on this topic.


----------



## Outsider

Alex_Murphy said:


> Oh come on! It has everything to do with their religion, the reason they are protesting is taking a stand FOR their religion about a comment made ABOUT their religion. If not all Muslims are upset and acting like this, then we shouldn't talk about ALL Muslims, according to you, does that make this NOT about Islam or Muslim? Of course not!


I reject the notion that whenever some Muslims act unreasonably, that proves there's something wrong with their religion.


----------



## Abu Bishr

So are you guys going to hold me responsible for what other Muslims do - Muslims who do not understand their own religion? Well, then why don't you just say outrightly without reservation, and right in our faces - me and the other Muslims in this forum: "You are killers". I'm sorry that one crazy Muslim killed a nun. I'm sorry guys. If I was by the means to prevent this from having happened then I would, and I believe this to be the sentiment of all the Muslims in this forum, no millions and millions of Muslims.

I've tried to engage in some type of academic discussion with you guys, and now you come around generalizing and blaming the death of a nun at the hands of some crazy Muslim(s) on the rest of the Muslims.

I DARE YOU GUYS TO SAY: YOU MUSLIMS ARE KILLERS.

Do you think Muslims don't feel sad when some crazy people who just happen to be Muslims hijack their religion, and kill in the name of Islam? Off course they feel sad. When my friend told me the sad news of a nun that was killed, do you think that I condoned the killing and celebrated? This is sad, and you will hear from Muslims all over the world that this is totally and utterly un-Islamic. Yes, it is true that this thing happens when Muslims are being angered, and it is true that there is absolutely no justification for killing an innocent nun, but it just so happens that it is open season on Muslims and Islam. Invade their countries, change their governments, just do whatever you want because it is open season to attack Muslims and their religion. Where in the world have people been so humiliated, attacked, driven from their homes, subjected to all kinds of humiliating methods of torture, held in prisons without any legal rights, and that on a daily basis? Islam teaches us that Muslims are a community of brothers and sisters, if one gets hurt all get hurt. This explains why one gets humiliated then all get humiliated.

Let one of you put on a the traditional Islamic dress and travel from one western country to another, and then see what it is that you have to go through. Muslims, you would have realized by now, take their religion seriously, they pray five times a day, they fast for one whole month every year, they try and be the best they possibly can in character and morals. You most probably don't know because the media is not interested in them, as they are not news worthy. Well, I can assure you that they are the majority and what the media is showing is a minority. Often the guys that you see on TV acting in very inappropriate ways and ways that put the rest of the Muslim community to shame, are a small handfull being sought after by the media, to perpetuate that type of stereotype. Even many of the migrants who go to live in western countries are people who come from extremel and abject poverty and war-torn countries, not being able to enjoy the basic comforts of life, not even basic education because their countries are in tatters.

Lastly, how would you people like me to hold you responsible for all the attrocities that European colonialists committed in the world? or the mess in Iraq and Afghanistan?

So, instead of blaming the rest of the Muslims for the actions of a few, learn to know the rest of the Muslims, and then hopefully you would go away with a totally different opinion, otherwise I have nothing further to say.

*Ps. This post is meant for those in the forum who blame all Muslims as well as Islam for the actions of a few. I know that there are others in this forum who do not hold this view, and so I have no queries with them.*


----------



## Nunty

Thank you for the information about the Sister in Somalia.

Like others, I think this thread has exceeded its scope, and I think I'll withdraw now.


----------



## beclija

Well, I'm not a Muslim and I go rather red in the face from what he said. 

As I have written earlier in this thread, cleaning his own yard would have made things much more credible. Sorry, but I do not see how Christianity is inherently more rational than Islam, it might have been relatively more rational in certain periods of history (and maybe this is one of them), but you could make the same statement the other way round for at least as many other periods. So the argument is flawed and partisan from the beginning. Europe's first university was in Moorish Spain, mind you!

I hope I don't have to explain that in my opinion, attacking churches and the like is not a desirable and rational reaction. But the arguments that go like "you don't see Christians react like this whenever a Muslim scholar says something about Christianity" are flawed. The Pope isn't just "some Christian theologist". You don't see the burning of churches in the Muslim world when some hard-core rightwing Croatian Catholic priest in Hercegovina says something about Islam, so it's zero:zero on that argument. The Pope is the head of an organization with one billion followers and highly respected by most other Christians. No remotely comparable figure exists in Islam. If there were one, and if he said something against Christianity, I can well imagine that the reaction from conservative Christians would be near indistinguishable from what we see now - which, again, doesn't make it a good thing.


----------



## Alxmrphi

a) I bet none of us here ever wanted those stupid wars to ever start

b) So what if it is a minority, those are the people we are talking about, minority or not.



> I reject the notion that whenever some Muslims act unreasonably, that proves there's something wrong with their religion.


Who said something wrong with their religion? If anything, I was refering to the mentality of these "protesting" Muslims who to me, and from what I have seen.. *only know how to solve their problems with violent protests and burning puppets of people and dancing on burning flags.*

So if it's a minority, does that mean it doesn't exist, NO?

I know a lot of people would love to see people commenting on Muslims as a racist thing but it's not, by any means, as I've repeatadly said, it's not about ALL muslims.

Like when I had that feminist rant, I never said I hated all women, just a minority of those feminists, so it's the same thing here, this protesting, angry Muslims, not all of them.

If this point isn't clear by now then I give up trying to explain it.



> I can well imagine that the reaction from conservative Christians would be near indistinguishable from what we see now - which, again, doesn't make it a good thing.



I truly doubt that.


----------



## beclija

Alex_Murphy said:


> I truly doubt that.


A pointless discussion, as we have no way to find out. My point was that you must not compare it with the the thing that there are no violent reactions when some Muslim theologist says unpleasant things about Christians, because there aren't any either when _some _Christian theologist does so about Islam. The pope isn't just _someone_. That point stands.


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

The original question was:



> What are everybody else's views on
> (Whilst bearing in mind the reactions of other religions if any other race/religion commented on their way of life)
> 
> 
> a) The Pope's comments?
> b) The mentality of "some" Muslims (the ones we see protesting now and the ones that seem to think any joke or jab is like the death of their parents, like the Mohammed Cartoons fiasco we had a few months ago)?



As has already been pointed out, we need to be very specific.  Sweeping generalizations about a particular religion or culture do not advance the discussion, but are only inflammatory.  

I am surprised at the Pope's choice of a text and his interpretation, because I would expect him to have a good grounding in Islamic theology.  I would also expect him to be knowledgeable about reactions to perceived or real attacks on Mohammed in certain quarters of the Muslim world.  I can only assume that he was being deliberately inflammatory.

I do notice a correlation between many of the demonstrations and populations that live in areas of violent conflict.  This seems to be linked to culture as much as to religion - if the dignity of one's person (or religion) is considered threatened, the only honourable reaction is sometimes perceived to be murder.

We need to remember that the vast majority of the world's Muslims have made their displeasure known in a peaceful manner compatible with the tenets of their faith.


----------



## Heba

Cnaeius said:


> Very friendly speaking, I would want to contest this selecting approach. It is never fair forgetting the core of a speech


 
I knew the main theme or the main point of the lecture from an English channel before reading the text. Believe me, I read it with this on mind, but still I cannot find any connection between the quote and the ''core'' of the speech. Actually, it seems to me that it was there for its own sake.

Anyway, I think that the whole discussion about it should be dropped now.



> I hope no Muslim is offended who comes here and who doesn't see the need to rally and go red in the face with anger over what the Pope said.


 
Alex, I have never been on a demonstartion, and I will never be, since demonstrations do no good, they usually develop into something else. But I kinda understand why some people chant their support and love for Islam in peaceful ones. As I said in a previous post, there is a growing feeling of being constantly targeted, and this makes some people more and more sensitive. You know, one of the forms of resistance is showing one's clinging to one's roots.

As for the death threats and other stupid things, I find them absolutely abhoral,crazy and outrageous

By the way, about the thread about feminists, I totally agree with you. I should go back and add my post.


----------



## Cnaeius

Chaska Ñawi said:


> ...I can only assume that he was being deliberately inflammatory.
> .


 
So would you argue that the today excuses are at 100% only false words of a false man? I reject all this Pope-is-a-priori-guilty approach. And I think that this approach is a way to really clash among different people of different cultures



Chaska Ñawi said:


> if the dignity of one's person (or religion) is considered threatened, the only honourable reaction is sometimes perceived to be murder.


 
This is quite terrifying



Chaska Ñawi said:


> We need to remember that the vast majority of the world's Muslims have made their displeasure known in a peaceful manner compatible with the tenets of their faith.


 
I agree on this


----------



## Abu Bishr

Here, let me invite you to listen to the following Quranic verse:

(O Humanity, We have created you from a male and a female and made you into nations and tribes *so that you may learn to know each other*. The best amongst you is he who is most pious and God-fearing ...)

Now, Islam acknowledges that people are different and come from different cultures and backgrounds, for if God so wanted He could have created everybody exactly the same. No, instead He created them differently, and that so for a purpose. That purpose is for people to rise above their individual, cultural and ethnic differences, and learn to know what people are about i.e. a type of double vision where the one tries to see through the eyes of the other. This is the challenge. You have a choice, you can allow the differences to separate and serve as barriers or you can allow them to enrich your perspective and perception of things.

Another popular Quranic verse is:" Among the signs of God is the differences in your tongues (i.e. languages) and colours". Differences we are not meant to use as an instrument to separate and segregate, but rather as a means to enrich ourselves. 

Look at these language forums. By learning another's language we learn to appreciate the people who speak that language. This forum, as is the aim of its founders, tries to bring people from all languages together and discuss issues of common interest, and in the process learn more about each other.

So my take on this is that unless we can manage to discuss things with one another without insulting the other and not use methods to separate and discriminate but rather search for a commonality or even a mutual point of understanding, we would have achieved a lot. Often, this calls for a change in perspective, but if we insist on finding differences, condemning, insulting, generalising, and all other methods of destructive discourse. The choice is yours, learn about each other or forever be deprived of mutual enrichment.

Ps. Since this is a language forum I suggest that we can make a start in learning about one other by learning the languages of those people that we understand the least and I asure that you will view them differently. That difference can be made, right here!


----------



## Everness

Abu Bishr said:


> I DARE YOU GUYS TO SAY: YOU MUSLIMS ARE KILLERS.



Abu Bishr,

I don't think anyone will put it so bluntly but there's a strong likelihood that some of us believe that Islam is more prone to violence than other religions. Franklin Graham, the son of the great evangelist Billy Graham and for many the Protestant Pope, also called Islam "a very evil and wicked religion" after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. So, unfortunately, the Pope is in good company. 

Individuals have reached the above conclusion not as a result of studying the teachings and history of Islam. They find it easier to uncritically follow their religious leaders in blaming an entire religion for the deeds of a few individuals who have hijacked it for political gain. Most people don't have the time or the willingness to embark on that type of intellectual activities. Once we put behind us this unholy mess, I'm sure that many Catholics will say, "If the Pope used that material, there must be some truth to it." Their prejudices will be strenghtened.


----------



## beclija

Everness said:


> Individuals have reached the above conclusion not as a result of studying the teachings and history of Islam. They find it easier to uncritically follow their religious leaders in blaming an entire religion


Thank you for this contribution. This is one of the reason why I as a (culturally) Catholic find the Pope's comment so outragious and distressing. Ignoring the factual inconsistency in calling Christianity inherently rational (which doesn't disqualify it, maybe religions aren't meant to be rational), he really should have known better, it's his job after all.


----------



## ArtVanderlay

Everness said:


> Abu Bishr,
> 
> I don't think anyone will put it so bluntly but there's a strong likelihood that some of us believe that Islam is more prone to violence than other religions. Franklin Graham, the son of the great evangelist Billy Graham and for many the Protestant Pope, also called Islam "a very evil and wicked religion" after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. So, FORTUNATELY, the Pope is in good company.


----------



## Outsider

You know, *ArtVanderlay*, by editing other people's posts to mean the opposite of what they originally said, you remind me of the way the media and other political interests have distorted the pope's words and blown this whole affair out of proportion.


----------



## Honeypum

The Pope may have committed a mistake by reading that lecture, but even if that's the case, I think that muslims' reaction is not normal ...


----------



## ArtVanderlay

Honeypum said:


> The Pope may have committed a mistake by reading that lecture, but even if that's the case, I think that muslims' reaction is not normal ...



Right: it's abnormal.


----------



## heidita

natasha2000 said:


> I think I have said enough and clear enough in this thread, so one with a little of brain can deduce about my position.


 
Great, many of us have not shown this " a little of brain" because we have misunderstood you.



> EDIT: Another thing. If he himself thought he did the right thing, then why on Earth would he apologize??????


 
I see. Does that mean you always do and especially _say _the right thing? You never involuntarily, as it is, offend somebody with your words? Lucky you. 

I think we all do now and again. If we are not willing to apologize for an involuntary insult, shame on us. Even for a voluntary insult, for that matter. As we often say something we later regret.


----------



## heidita

ArtVanderlay said:


> It is true that many Muslims seem easily incenses when these types of things occur. This anger is not one that just started today, or yesterday. This is the result of years of oppressive action against Islam


Ok, let's say this is true and take it into everyday life. After years of abuse the wife killed her husband. Is that_ right_? Belcija, is that _understandable_? 



> With all that's supposedly in the koran against killing, it's amazing that so much in done in the name of it.


 
True, but so have Christians, killed in the name of God.


----------



## Honeypum

heidita said:


> If we are not willing to apologize for an involuntary insult, shame on us. Even for a voluntary insult, for that matter. As we often say something we later regret.


 
Exactly, I think the Pope did the right thing asking for apologizes for his unintended insult ... 
I have the feeling that some people are like "hunters" waiting for someone to say something wrong or not 100% appropiate and then use it as an excuse to defend or support other ideologeis or points of views ... now the Pope's words seems to give free rain to some muslims' violence and everybody seems to forget that he already asked for public apologizes.


----------



## heidita

Outsider said:


> You know, *ArtVanderlay*, by editing other people's posts to mean the opposite of what they originally said, you remind me of the way the media and other political interests have distorted the pope's words and blown this whole affair out of proportion.


 
I think this is a very good point. This I read in the Spanish paper "La Razón" today:



> Benedicto XVI reiteró hoy que se siente "vivamente afligido" por la reacción adversa que sus palabras ...ha causado en el mundo musulmán y aseguró sentir "mucho" la respuesta, "que ha sido considerado ofensivo para la sensibilidad de los creyentes musulmanes", .. no mostraban su opinión, sino que eran* una cita de un texto medieval,*


 
and the reaction has been this




> el Ejército de los Muyaidines, amenazara a través de Internet al Papa diciendo que "su cruz en el centro de Roma será destruida" y que la capital italiana "será conquistada por el ejército de Mahoma y asistirán a la destrucción de su Vaticano".


 
So now they are threatening him directly that he shall be killed. This reaction is surely "understandable " by some, not by others I hope.


----------



## Everness

Honeypum said:


> Exactly, I think the Pope did the right thing asking for apologizes for his unintended insult ...
> I have the feeling that some people are like "hunters" waiting for someone to say something wrong or not 100% appropiate and then use it as an excuse to defend or support other ideologeis or points of views ... now the Pope's words seems to give free rain to some muslims' violence and everybody seems to forget that he already asked for public apologizes.



I think the Pope is interested in building dialogue across faith traditions. He is one of the most gifted intellectuals the Roman Catholic faith has. I'm also sure that he pondered the pros and cons of selecting that particular a medieval text about holy wars before using it in his university lecture. The Pope doesn't live in a vaccum, he reads the newspapers and/or watches TV, and knows how the Muslim community reacts to this type of broad characterizations. 

Even if he is now saying that this quote doesn't reflect his personal thoughts, I'm still at a loss in terms of understanding why he did what he did. He got us talking for sure!


----------



## ireney

First of all if Islam _really_ said that the Muslims should spread their faith by the sword all Muslims who really believe and don't just go through the moves would take a sword, gun, something and we'd be in serious trouble.

Manuel Paleologos (not _the_ last Emperor but one of the last) was understandably bitter. I said it before and I'll say it again. Since his point was to discuss whether or not his (M.P) view of God had to do with the emperor's "hellenic" (heathen  ) education or not, why not pick someone else who had said that "God is love etc"?

(On the whole by the way, I don't understand how one could think that the Greek philosophy could be said to be the one responsible for the "God is love" idea).

I can't say I really understand Islam, not really. I had once upon a time a very interesting discussion in an Arab forum about Islam but the whole thing ended badly I'm afraid.
What people do not understand is that Islam is more than a religion. It is not possible to equate Islam with Christianity really. 
Anyway, another reason I wouldn't chose Paleologos' quote is that the reasons behind feeling as he did where quite different for whichever reasons one might have to ponder about Islam (I mean bar the fact that the whole speech doesn't ponder about the nature of Islam but on the nature of Christianity). 
Manuel Paleologos had to face an enemy that swept through Byzantium (and all the way to Vienna). For him, the fact that he didn't even think that that particular enemy also swept through the Arabic world is perfectly understandable don't you think?

Now these loonies who guide and incense people into acting in that way (I am talking about the terrorists who claim they are Jihadis and their leaders). 
Anyone who knows about others who have used religion, *any* religion to gain power raise your hands! Anyone who knows about others who have followed blindly what they've been told is the right thing to do raise your hands.

I have my... "issues" with the Prophet (and this was one of the reasons my experience in that Arab forum ended badly; some people don't react well when you ask some questions and they i.e. tell you that you are going to burn in HELL! for having issues with hmmm cursing a poor fig tree out of season for figs  ).

Blaming everything loonies do to Him is to my mind the same as blaming everything to our "He" when the christian church, does bad, BAD things (you don't need a list do you?)


----------



## heidita

Honeypum said:


> Exactly, I think the Pope did the right thing asking for apologizes for his unintended insult ...
> I have the feeling that some people are like "hunters" waiting for someone to say something wrong or not 100% appropiate and then use it as an excuse to defend or support other ideologeis or points of views ... now the Pope's words seems to give free rain to some muslims' violence and everybody seems to forget that he already asked for public apologizes.


 
I am not even a catholic myself, but I do appreciate that somebody else sees this unfortunate episode as _completely unintended._


----------



## Abu Bishr

Hi Guys

Listen here Guys, as a Muslim, I will be the first to admit that there are certain elements in the Muslim community that behave in a very unruly way. I don't deny that, and believe you me that others Muslims out there that are trying very hard to remedy the problem, and believe you me that these are very devout Muslims but they see absolutely no Islamic reason to behave in that way.

Now, if you say that Muslims are more predisposed to behave in a violent fashion, then what do you say to Christianity's checkered past: crusades, witch hunting, Inquiry (hunting down scientists), and what about Europe's colonial past: killing of native Americans, Australian Aborigines, Indians, Africans, etc. Where were the Muslims during the two World Wars? Where the Muslims during the Holocaust? Where were the Jews treated the best during the Medieval Times? The Britian comes along and decides to built a state for the Jews inside another state with the result that thousands of people got displaced and had to live in refugee camps and continue to live there? This problem had ever since been at the heart of all the other problems in the Middle East with no sulotion in sight. This problem lead to many Muslims forming resistant movements and the result is what you see today. America comes in and helps build up Iraq's arsenal and supports Iraq in a war against Iran, and the Afghanis in a war against communist Russia at the time. Look where all this mess started. A mess that created both Bin Laden and Saddam Hussain with the support of the US. Both these creations backfire and become a pretext for the US to attack both Afghanistan and Iraq. Should I continue with Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the atom bomb. Are'nt these people all Christians except that they found it really convenient to separate between the Christian private lives and secular political military lives. Yes, one might argue that Christianity does not need an army because its secular states will defend it in the name of freedom and democracy, and this is what's happening. A lot of Christians (Evangelists and Chistian Right) support Bush's war in the Middle East as Christians except that won't ever have to pick up a weapon and do the actual fighting because the "secular" America will do that in the name of spreading freedom and democracy. Is'nt Bush Christian and does he find it convenient to live privately as a Christian and publicly as a secular military chief?

Believe you me this a very very long story, which you all know too well.

Answer me one question? Was Islam and Muslims really a problem before the fall of Communism? Were there suicide bombers then?

Now, I would


----------



## ireney

Abu Bishr this is a totally different matter. It's one thing to defend your faith and another to attack the religion of another. 

Not only it is unrelated to what we are discussing here it is also just as bad as what some "christians" do.

I could answer some of your questions but we'd be going waaaay off topic.  Yes, some like to equate Islam with terrrorism and some like to equate West as I have been heard the Christian world referrred with immorality. _Both_ are wrong and we should be careful not to start hurling mud to each others fac. Christians did and do bad things, Muslims did and do bad things.

Starting a "you do bad things too" kind of argument is a bit childish if you ask me


----------



## Alxmrphi

Abu_Bishar, I'm happy you are here to defend the opposite side and I'm really happy to see that "a problem" is acknowledged within the Muslim community.
You are totally right about other religions and did and do bad things, I am 100% behind that fact, but as ireney said, it's not really for "this thread", though I perfectly understand that you deserve to have a few points made about other religions, a lot here, have been made about yours.


----------



## Blackleaf

Why is it that when someone criticises or says something bad about Christianity or another religion, you don't get Christians (or whoever) taking to the streets to protest and holding up placards saying "BEHEAD THOSE WHO INSULT CHRISTIANITY!" But say something "nasty" about Islam - these days it doesn't take much - and you get hundreds of Muslims taking to the streets in protest issuing death threats and Jihad against the West. Is it my imagination or are these Muslims going slightly over the top? There must have been many times over the last few centuries when Muslims or Jews or Hindus have insulted Christianity and Christians hardly react at all. We just ignore. So why are Muslims different?


----------



## ireney

Apart from being somewhat irritated that this thread has been going off-topic for a while now, I can't also help wondering how can some people reduce socio-economic, cultural and other differences to a simple "we are christians they are muslims"! 

Can we take all this to another thread and those of us who believe in any God pray that the discussion will not turn so ugly that it will have to be locked and thrown to the wide oceans of oblivion?


----------



## Alxmrphi

Blackleaf said:


> Why is it that when someone criticises or says something bad about Christianity or another religion, you don't get Christians (or whoever) taking to the streets to protest and holding up placards saying "BEHEAD THOSE WHO INSULT CHRISTIANITY!" But say something "nasty" about Islam - these days it doesn't take much - and you get hundreds of Muslims taking to the streets in protest issuing death threats and Jihad against the West. Is it my imagination or are these Muslims going slightly over the top? There must have been many times over the last few centuries when Muslims or Jews or Hindus have insulted Christianity and Christians hardly react at all. We just ignore. So why are Muslims different?



This is exactly why I opened the thread!! It confuses and annoys me.


----------



## Alxmrphi

ireney said:


> Apart from being somewhat irritated that this thread has been going off-topic for a while now, I can't also help wondering how can some people reduce socio-economic, cultural and other differences to a simple "we are christians they are muslims"!
> 
> Can we take all this to another thread and those of us who believe in any God pray that the discussion will not turn so ugly that it will have to be locked and thrown to the wide oceans of oblivion?



The question was what do you think of the reactions of the Muslims, and we are talking about that here, where have we gone off-topic?

As for reducing it to Muslims and Christians... look at the situation, Catholic leader says something about Islam, is this not the sensible reduction to make? to compare it with these two things?


----------



## ireney

Alex I rest my case!! (see the latest post of Blackleaf)


----------



## GenJen54

Each of you was asked at the beginning of this thread to comply with the Forum rules of decorum.  (See Rules #24 - #26).

Few of you chose to act in a manner that is cordial and becoming of these forums.

This thread is closed.


----------

