Pope Seen Criticizing Islam

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

Pope Seen Criticizing Islam

IslamOnline.net & News Agencies

EGENSBURG, Germany — In what some immediately saw as a serious diversion from the rapprochement approach of his predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI on Tuesday, September 12, said the Islamic concepts of "Jihad" was unreasonable and against God's nature.

Using the words, "Jihad" and "Holy War" in lecture at the University of Regensburg, the pontiff quoted criticism of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessing be upon him) by a 14th Century Byzantine Christian emperor, reported Agence France-Presse (AFP).

"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 Manuel II.

Quoting the Byzantine Christian emperor, Benedict said spreading the faith through violence is unreasonable and that acting without reason was against God's nature.

"Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul," added the pontiff in his own words.

British Karen Armstrong, a famed prolific writer on all three monotheistic religions, has criticized stereotyping the Arabic word "jihad" as merely meaning holy war.

She stressed that "jihad is a cherished spiritual value that, for most Muslims, has no connection with violence."

At a giant open-air mass earlier Tuesday, Pope Benedict urged more than 250,000 pilgrims to stand up for their beliefs in the face of the "hatred and fanaticism" tarnishing religion.

"Such an atmosphere made it important to state clearly the God in whom we believe," the pope said.

Strongest criticism


"This is maybe the strongest criticism because he doesn’t speak of fundamentalist Islam but of Islam generally," said Guolo.

Pope's criticism of Islam made his address the most political of his six-day visit to Germany, which had previously dealt exclusively with spiritual matters, commented AFP.

"This is maybe the strongest criticism because he doesn’t speak of fundamentalist Islam but of Islam generally," Renzo Guolo, a professor of the sociology of religion at the University of Padua, told The New York Times on Wednesday, September 13.

"Not all Islam, thank God, is fundamentalist."

Marco Politi, the Vatican expert for the Italian daily La Repubblica, said the pontiff's speech revealed "deep mistrust regarding the aggressive side of Islam."

"Certainly he closes the door to an idea which was very dear to John Paul II — the idea that Christians, Jews and Muslims have the same God and have to pray together to the same God," he asserted.

Daniel A. Madigan, rector of the Institute for the Study of Religions and Cultures at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, agreed.

"If we are really going into a serious dialogue with Muslims we need to take faith seriously."

But papal spokesman Father Federico Lombardi sought to ease the severity of the Pope's rebukes of Islam.

He argued that the pontiff used Manuel's views of Islam only to help explain the issue and not to condemn all of the Muslim religion as violent.

"This is just an example. We know that inside Islam there are many different positions, violent and non-violent," he said.

"The Pope does not want to give an interpretation of Islam that is violent."

Unlike late pope John Paul, Cardinal Ratzinger, who took the name of Benedict after his election, does not approve of joint prayers with Muslims.

He is also skeptical of the value of inter-religious dialogue.

In the summer of 2005, Pope Benedict devoted an annual weekend of study with former graduate students to Islam.

During the meeting, and since, he has reportedly expressed skepticism about Islam’s openness to change given the conviction that the Noble Quran is the unchangeable word of God.

In 2004, Pope Benedict also caused a stir by opposing Turkey's accession into the European Union.

He said Turkey should seek its future in an association of Islamic nations, not with the EU, which has Christian roots

[therebbe]

Not suprising. How naive of people to fire back and forth.

[Woodrow]

I'm saddened to see the inroads and progress John-Paul made become lost because of one man.

[therebbe]

Have there been powerful Imams that have critisized Christianity before? The Trinity is easy prey for many forum members here, and many powerful Muslims everywhere. I personally think it is dumb to bicker and debate on about religion.

Our Rabbi's teach us that to debate is not wise because you only make enemies. Jews aren't out to convert people so we really don't care if you degrade our religion, as long as you do not try to murder the souls (convert our naive members of our faith.)

But I have gotten off track.

The point of my post is basically not to support anyone, and condemn all this childish banter between religions. I really do not expect much from the pope. Possibly Muslims can speak louder by showing there integrity and not trying to slander Catholics or anyother faith.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Ubaidah]

Ignorance. It's sad that this Pope will most likely hurt the good things that John-Paul established..

[lavikor201]

Quoting the Byzantine Christian emperor, Benedict said spreading the faith through violence is unreasonable and that acting without reason was against God's nature.

has he forgotten that Christianity has spread the same way. How else do you think Islam and CHRISTIANITY spread. G-d taught to never conquer and convert anyone. They had to make the choice on there own.

Thank G-d Judaism never taught to convert people in mass like some of our counterparts on earth. Only 14 million Jews on earth, yet we seem to be in the news, winning prizes, creating new things, producing scientific papers, and accomplishing so much. Only 14 million and we truly have accomplished the impossible already.

[Keltoi]

Spreading faith through violence is unreasonable, that much is true. The act of killing is against the nature of God. However, if the Pope was concerned about those who have acted against the nature of God, he should have spoken about humanity as a whole, not Islam.

[lavikor201]

However, if the Pope was concerned about those who have acted against the nature of God, he should have spoken about humanity as a whole, not Islam.

Good post. :) Reps! :p

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

Therebbe, Islam didnt spread through force...if das what u mean.
Every nation has made some advancement, whether it was expanding it or starting it.
Islam teaches the same. If the person asks us then we should tell them. Some scholars like to debate, some dont. Allah tells us to invite people with wisdom..

[north_malaysian]

Now I really missed someone pro-humanity like Pope John Paul II. He's good to both Jews and Muslims. The ONLY figure RESPECTED by both peoples. He prayed at Western Wall and kissed the Holy Koran.... to show that for him both of us, Jews and Muslims are humans like him.

[Janissary]

The pope has the nerve to criticize Islam for having spread by violence? One shouldn't throw rocks inside a house of glass.

Bring on John Paul III, the world needs him!

[sonz]

Fain would they extinguish Allah's light with their mouths, but Allah will not allow but that His light should be perfected, even though the Unbelievers may detest (it).
009.032

[chitownmuslim]

Spreading faith through violence is unreasonable, that much is true. The act of killing is against the nature of God. However, if the Pope was concerned about those who have acted against the nature of God, he should have spoken about humanity as a whole, not Islam.

Very well said...

[S_87]

Have there been powerful Imams that have critisized Christianity before? The Trinity is easy prey for many forum members here, and many powerful Muslims everywhere. I personally think it is dumb to bicker and debate on about religion.

.

theres a difference between pciking at things in a religion and talking about the Prophets. and muslims have NEVER spoke against Isa may peace be upon him, because we respect him as a Prophet of Allah. Same goes to Moosa, may peace be upon him. the pope criticised Muhamed :arabic5:

[AvarAllahNoor]

has he forgotten that Christianity has spread the same way. How else do you think Islam and CHRISTIANITY spread. G-d taught to never conquer and convert anyone. They had to make the choice on there own.

Thank G-d Judaism never taught to convert people in mass like some of our counterparts on earth. Only 14 million Jews on earth, yet we seem to be in the news, winning prizes, creating new things, producing scientific papers, and accomplishing so much. Only 14 million and we truly have accomplished the impossible already.

Yup same with us Sikhs. It's about 'Quality' for us Sikhs and not about 'Quantity' :)

[Ghazi]

has he forgotten that Christianity has spread the same way. How else do you think Islam and CHRISTIANITY spread. G-d taught to never conquer and convert anyone. They had to make the choice on there own.

Thank G-d Judaism never taught to convert people in mass like some of our counterparts on earth. Only 14 million Jews on earth, yet we seem to be in the news, winning prizes, creating new things, producing scientific papers, and accomplishing so much. Only 14 million and we truly have accomplished the impossible already.

:sl:

That's simply not sure if it were you'd be a muslim so would the majority of the world.

[moujahid]

:sl:

yeeaaa lets see...Islam was spread by sword? The hundreds and thousands of new converts today and still growing are being forced into Islam?? :rollseyes
--- Who in the world is he to say anything about the Oneness of Allah and the Noble Prophet of Allah, Salallahu alayhi wa sallam.
---

[duskiness]

here are excerpts from Pope's speech. Is it really offensive to you?
He quoted man from XIV century, who - yes, probably didn't like Islam. But hey! christian history is often also presented from one side! It doesn't make anyone happy but let's not exaggerat. It doesn't seem to me Pope was trying to insult you.
and another article: Turkish official compares pope to Hitler

[Aznan]

Lavikor, please don't make blind and baseless assumptions like that. dont insinuate the way YOU think islam was spread. btw, refer to the topic at hand.
btw, dont be singing your own praises here. thats YOUR point of view. there's more to it that other people sees that you're BLIND to.
----------------------------------------------------------
IMHO, THE new pope seems to expound prejudice over tolerance. does peace and co-existence means anything to him?

[~Stranger~]

Thank G-d Judaism never taught to convert people in mass

r u saying helping ppl to find the truth and peace wrong?
we never force anyone to convert to islam (and u can ask few member here who r converts themselves if they were ever forced to become muslims)

hows haifa btw??

[Abdul Fattah]

here are excerpts from Pope's speech. Is it really offensive to you?
He quoted man from XIV century, who - yes, probably didn't like Islam. But hey! christian history is often also presented from one side! It doesn't make anyone happy but let's not exaggerat. It doesn't seem to me Pope was trying to insult you.
and another article: Turkish official compares pope to Hitler

I've seen a video of his speech. What he said was: Muhammed brought nothing new to teh world that is good, only bad things such as spreading religion by the sword. (astagfurallah)
Is that offensive to me? Defenitly! To see the most honorable and respectfull man of history slandered in such a way hurts me deeply.

But let me tell you just a single thing of what muhammed (pbuh) brought: he thought us not to slander other religions because it will only invite others to slander Islam. So slandering another religion is equal to slandering your own.

Sadly the pope did not recieve that message.

[Muezzin]

Hang on a minute. Does anyone have a transcript of the entire speech? As I understand it this passage was a quote rather than the Pope's own words. I'd like to get an idea of its context before coming to a conclusion.

[mindtrick]

I'm Turkish and I really dislike this man. I'm an agnostic, but I know how religions work, all I can see is pure ignorance in that speech. But I also think that the speech is deliberated.

[Jayda]

I am really trying to avoid this thread but here is the full text translation of the Holy Father's speech for you Muezzin:

Faith, Reason and the University
Memories and Reflections


Distinguished Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is a moving experience for me to stand and give a lecture at this university podium once again. I think back to those years when, after a pleasant period at the Freisinger Hochschule, I began teaching at the University of Bonn. This was in 1959, in the days of the old university made up of ordinary professors. The various chairs had neither assistants nor secretaries, but in recompense there was much direct contact with students and in particular among the professors themselves. We would meet before and after lessons in the rooms of the teaching staff. There was a lively exchange with historians, philosophers, philologists and, naturally, between the two theological faculties. Once a semester there was a dies academicus, when professors from every faculty appeared before the students of the entire university, making possible a genuine experience of universitas: the reality that despite our specializations which at times make it difficult to communicate with each other, we made up a whole, working in everything on the basis of a single rationality with its various aspects and sharing responsibility for the right use of reason - this reality became a lived experience. The university was also very proud of its two theological faculties. It was clear that, by inquiring about the reasonableness of faith, they too carried out a work which is necessarily part of the whole of the universitas scientiarum, even if not everyone could share the faith which theologians seek to correlate with reason as a whole. This profound sense of coherence within the universe of reason was not troubled, even when it was once reported that a colleague had said there was something odd about our university: it had two faculties devoted to something that did not exist: God. That even in the face of such radical scepticism it is still necessary and reasonable to raise the question of God through the use of reason, and to do so in the context of the tradition of the Christian faith: this, within the university as a whole, was accepted without question.



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. It was probably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than the responses of the learned Persian. The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Qur'an, and deals especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship of the three Laws: the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Qur'an. In this lecture I would like to discuss only one point - itself rather marginal to the dialogue itself - which, in the context of the issue of faith and reason, I found interesting and which can serve as the starting-point for my reflections on this issue.


In the seventh conversation (διάλεξις - controversy) edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the jihad (holy war). The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: There is no compulsion in religion. It is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threaten. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur’an, concerning holy war. Without decending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the “Book” and the “infidels”, he turns to his interlocutor somewhat brusquely with the central question on the relationship between religion and violence in general, in these words: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." The emperor goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. God is not pleased by blood, and not acting reasonably (σὺν λόγω) 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....

The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality. Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practise idolatry.


As far as understanding of God and thus the concrete practice of religion is concerned, we find ourselves faced with a dilemma which nowadays challenges us directly. Is the conviction that acting unreasonably contradicts God's nature merely a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true? I believe that here we can see the profound harmony between what is Greek in the best sense of the word and the biblical understanding of faith in God. Modifying the first verse of the Book of Genesis, John began the prologue of his Gospel with the words: In the beginning was the λόγoς. This is the very word used by the emperor: God acts with logos. Logos means both reason and word - a reason which is creative and capable of self-communication, precisely as reason. John thus spoke the final word on the biblical concept of God, and in this word all the often toilsome and tortuous threads of biblical faith find their culmination and synthesis. In the beginning was the logos, and the logos is God, says the Evangelist. The encounter between the Biblical message and Greek thought did not happen by chance. The vision of Saint Paul, who saw the roads to Asia barred and in a dream saw a Macedonian man plead with him: Come over to Macedonia and help us! (cf. Acts 16:6-10) - this vision can be interpreted as a distillation of the intrinsic necessity of a rapprochement between Biblical faith and Greek inquiry.


In point of fact, this rapprochement had been going on for some time. The mysterious name of God, revealed from the burning bush, a name which separates this God from all other divinities with their many names and declares simply that he is, is already presents a challenge to the notion of myth, to which Socrates's attempt to vanquish and transcend myth stands in close analogy. Within the Old Testament, the process which started at the burning bush came to new maturity at the time of the Exile, when the God of Israel, an Israel now deprived of its land and worship, was proclaimed as the God of heaven and earth and described in a simple formula which echoes the words uttered at the burning bush: I am. This new understanding of God is accompanied by a kind of enlightenment, which finds stark expression in the mockery of gods who are merely the work of human hands (cf. Ps 115). Thus, despite the bitter conflict with those Hellenistic rulers who sought to accommodate it forcibly to the customs and idolatrous cult of the Greeks, biblical faith, in the Hellenistic period, encountered the best of Greek thought at a deep level, resulting in a mutual enrichment evident especially in the later wisdom literature. Today we know that the Greek translation of the Old Testament produced at Alexandria - the Septuagint - is more than a simple (and in that sense perhaps less than satisfactory) translation of the Hebrew text: it is an independent textual witness and a distinct and important step in the history of revelation, one which brought about this encounter in a way that was decisive for the birth and spread of Christianity. A profound encounter of faith and reason is taking place here, an encounter between genuine enlightenment and religion. From the very heart of Christian faith and, at the same time, the heart of Greek thought now joined to faith, Manuel II was able to say: Not to act “with logos” is contrary to God's nature.


In all honesty, one must observe that in the late Middle Ages we find trends in theology which would sunder this synthesis between the Greek spirit and the Christian spirit. In contrast with the so-called intellectualism of Augustine and Thomas, there arose with Duns Scotus a voluntarism which ultimately led to the claim that we can only know God's voluntas ordinata. Beyond this is the realm of God's freedom, in virtue of which he could have done the opposite of everything he has actually done. This gives rise to positions which clearly approach those of Ibn Hazn and might even lead to the image of a capricious God, who is not even bound to truth and goodness. God's transcendence and otherness are so exalted that our reason, our sense of the true and good, are no longer an authentic mirror of God, whose deepest possibilities remain eternally unattainable and hidden behind his actual decisions. As opposed to this, the faith of the Church has always insisted that between God and us, between his eternal Creator Spirit and our created reason there exists a real analogy, in which unlikeness remains infinitely greater than likeness, yet not to the point of abolishing analogy and its language (cf. Lateran IV). God does not become more divine when we push him away from us in a sheer, impenetrable voluntarism; rather, the truly divine God is the God who has revealed himself as logos and, as logos, has acted and continues to act lovingly on our behalf. Certainly, love transcends knowledge and is thereby capable of perceiving more than thought alone (cf. Eph 3:19); nonetheless it continues to be love of the God who is logos. Consequently, Christian worship is λογικὴ λατρεία - worship in harmony with the eternal Word and with our reason (cf. Rom 12:1).


This inner rapprochement between Biblical faith and Greek philosophical inquiry was an event of decisive importance not only from the standpoint of the history of religions, but also from that of world history – it is an event which concerns us even today. Given this convergence, it is not surprising that Christianity, despite its origins and some significant developments in the East, finally took on its historically decisive character in Europe. We can also express this the other way around: this convergence, with the subsequent addition of the Roman heritage, created Europe and remains the foundation of what can rightly be called Europe.



The thesis that the critically purified Greek heritage forms an integral part of Christian faith has been countered by the call for a dehellenization of Christianity – a call which has more and more dominated theological discussions since the beginning of the modern age. Viewed more closely, three stages can be observed in the programme of dehellenization: although interconnected, they are clearly distinct from one another in their motivations and objectives.


Dehellenization first emerges in connection with the fundamental postulates of the Reformation in the sixteenth century. Looking at the tradition of scholastic theology, the Reformers thought they were confronted with a faith system totally conditioned by philosophy, that is to say an articulation of the faith based on an alien system of thought. As a result, faith no longer appeared as a living historical Word but as one element of an overarching philosophical system. The principle of sola scriptura, on the other hand, sought faith in its pure, primordial form, as originally found in the biblical Word. Metaphysics appeared as a premise derived from another source, from which faith had to be liberated in order to become once more fully itself. When Kant stated that he needed to set thinking aside in order to make room for faith, he carried this programme forward with a radicalism that the Reformers could never have foreseen. He thus anchored faith exclusively in practical reason, denying it access to reality as a whole.


The liberal theology of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries ushered in a second stage in the process of dehellenization, with Adolf von Harnack as its outstanding representative. When I was a student, and in the early years of my teaching, this programme was highly influential in Catholic theology too. It took as its point of departure Pascal’s distinction between the God of the philosophers and the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. In my inaugural lecture at Bonn in 1959, I tried to address the issue. I will not repeat here what I said on that occasion, but I would like to describe at least briefly what was new about this second stage of dehellenization. Harnack’s central idea was to return simply to the man Jesus and to his simple message, underneath the accretions of theology and indeed of hellenization: this simple message was seen as the culmination of the religious development of humanity. Jesus was said to have put an end to worship in favour of morality. In the end he was presented as the father of a humanitarian moral message. The fundamental goal was to bring Christianity back into harmony with modern reason, liberating it, that is to say, from seemingly philosophical and theological elements, such as faith in Christ’s divinity and the triune God. In this sense, historical-critical exegesis of the New Testament restored to theology its place within the university: theology, for Harnack, is something essentially historical and therefore strictly scientific. What it is able to say critically about Jesus is, so to speak, an expression of practical reason and consequently it can take its rightful place within the university. Behind this thinking lies the modern self-limitation of reason, classically expressed in Kant’s “Critiques”, but in the meantime further radicalized by the impact of the natural sciences. This modern concept of reason is based, to put it briefly, on a synthesis between Platonism (Cartesianism) and empiricism, a synthesis confirmed by the success of technology. On the one hand it presupposes the mathematical structure of matter, its intrinsic rationality, which makes it possible to understand how matter works and use it efficiently: this basic premise is, so to speak, the Platonic element in the modern understanding of nature. On the other hand, there is nature’s capacity to be exploited for our purposes, and here only the possibility of verification or falsification through experimentation can yield ultimate certainty. The weight between the two poles can, depending on the circumstances, shift from one side to the other. As strongly positivistic a thinker as J. Monod has declared himself a convinced Platonist/Cartesian.


This gives rise to two principles which are crucial for the issue we have raised. First, only the kind of certainty resulting from the interplay of mathematical and empirical elements can be considered scientific. Anything that would claim to be science must be measured against this criterion. Hence the human sciences, such as history, psychology, sociology and philosophy, attempt to conform themselves to this canon of scientificity. A second point, which is important for our reflections, is that by its very nature this method excludes the question of God, making it appear an unscientific or pre-scientific question. Consequently, we are faced with a reduction of the radius of science and reason, one which needs to be questioned.


We shall return to this problem later. In the meantime, it must be observed that from this standpoint any attempt to maintain theology’s claim to be “scientific” would end up reducing Christianity to a mere fragment of its former self. But we must say more: it is man himself who ends up being reduced, for the specifically human questions about our origin and destiny, the questions raised by religion and ethics, then have no place within the purview of collective reason as defined by “science” and must thus be relegated to the realm of the subjective. The subject then decides, on the basis of his experiences, what he considers tenable in matters of religion, and the subjective “conscience” becomes the sole arbiter of what is ethical. In this way, though, ethics and religion lose their power to create a community and become a completely personal matter. This is a dangerous state of affairs for humanity, as we see from the disturbing pathologies of religion and reason which necessarily erupt when reason is so reduced that questions of religion and ethics no longer concern it. Attempts to construct an ethic from the rules of evolution or from psychology and sociology, end up being simply inadequate.


Before I draw the conclusions to which all this has been leading, I must briefly refer to the third stage of dehellenization, which is now in progress. In the light of our experience with cultural pluralism, it is often said nowadays that the synthesis with Hellenism achieved in the early Church was a preliminary inculturation which ought not to be binding on other cultures. The latter are said to have the right to return to the simple message of the New Testament prior to that inculturation, in order to inculturate it anew in their own particular milieux. This thesis is not only false; it is coarse and lacking in precision. The New Testament was written in Greek and bears the imprint of the Greek spirit, which had already come to maturity as the Old Testament developed. True, there are elements in the evolution of the early Church which do not have to be integrated into all cultures. Nonetheless, the fundamental decisions made about the relationship between faith and the use of human reason are part of the faith itself; they are developments consonant with the nature of faith itself.


And so I come to my conclusion. This attempt, painted with broad strokes, at a critique of modern reason from within has nothing to do with putting the clock back to the time before the Enlightenment and rejecting the insights of the modern age. The positive aspects of modernity are to be acknowledged unreservedly: we are all grateful for the marvellous possibilities that it has opened up for mankind and for the progress in humanity that has been granted to us. The scientific ethos, moreover, is the will to be obedient to the truth, and, as such, it embodies an attitude which reflects one of the basic tenets of Christianity. The intention here is not one of retrenchment or negative criticism, but of broadening our concept of reason and its application. While we rejoice in the new possibilities open to humanity, we also see the dangers arising from these possibilities and we must ask ourselves how we can overcome them. We will succeed in doing so only if reason and faith come together in a new way, if we overcome the self-imposed limitation of reason to the empirically verifiable, and if we once more disclose its vast horizons. In this sense theology rightly belongs in the university and within the wide-ranging dialogue of sciences, not merely as a historical discipline and one of the human sciences, but precisely as theology, as inquiry into the rationality of faith.


Only thus do we become capable of that genuine dialogue of cultures and religions so urgently needed today. In the Western world it is widely held that only positivistic reason and the forms of philosophy based on it are universally valid. Yet the world’s profoundly religious cultures see this exclusion of the divine from the universality of reason as an attack on their most profound convictions. A reason which is deaf to the divine and which relegates religion into the realm of subcultures is incapable of entering into the dialogue of cultures. At the same time, as I have attempted to show, modern scientific reason with its intrinsically Platonic element bears within itself a question which points beyond itself and beyond the possibilities of its methodology. Modern scientific reason quite simply has to accept the rational structure of matter and the correspondence between our spirit and the prevailing rational structures of nature as a given, on which its methodology has to be based. Yet the question why this has to be so is a real question, and one which has to be remanded by the natural sciences to other modes and planes of thought – to philosophy and theology. For philosophy and, albeit in a different way, for theology, listening to the great experiences and insights of the religious traditions of humanity, and those of the Christian faith in particular, is a source of knowledge, and to ignore it would be an unacceptable restriction of our listening and responding. Here I am reminded of something Socrates said to Phaedo. In their earlier conversations, many false philosophical opinions had been raised, and so Socrates says: “It would be easily understandable if someone became so annoyed at all these false notions that for the rest of his life he despised and mocked all talk about being - but in this way he would be deprived of the truth of existence and would suffer a great loss”. The West has long been endangered by this aversion to the questions which underlie its rationality, and can only suffer great harm thereby. The courage to engage the whole breadth of reason, and not the denial of its grandeur – this is the programme with which a theology grounded in Biblical faith enters into the debates of our time. “Not to act reasonably (with logos) is contrary to the nature of God”, said Manuel II, according to his Christian understanding of God, in response to his Persian interlocutor. It is to this great logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures. To rediscover it constantly is the great task of the university.

And this is a follow up about the speech from the Vatican on CWNews

Regensburg, Sep. 13 (CWNews.com) - The director of the Vatican press office has urged reporters to notice that a lecture delivered by Pope Benedict XVI (bio - news) on September 12, at the University of Regensburg, was not an attack on Islam.

There are "many different positions" within the Islamic world, observed Father Federico Lombardi, including support for non-violence. When he argued that violence contradicts religious faith, the Vatican spokesman said, the Pontiff was not issuing a blanket condemnation of Muslim beliefs.

The more important message of the Pope's address, Father Lombardi continued, was the plea for an end to the split between faith and reason. He suggested that the Pope was tracing the same arguments put forward by Pope John Paul II (bio - news) in his 1998 encyclical Fides et Ratio (doc), in opposing "the marginalization of faith by modern rationalism."

That same message, Father Lombardi continued, was evident in the Pope's address earlier on Tuesday, during a homily at Mass in Regensburg, when he underlined the "reasonable character of belief." The Pope, he said, was making a "clear and linear" exposition of the Christian understanding of God.

In the speech at the University of Regensburg, the Vatican spokesman said, the Pope "did not want to give a lecture interpreting Islam in a violent sense, but affirming that when there is a violent interpretation of religion, we see a contradiction with God's nature." In discussing the concept of jihad, he said, the Pope was using a rational analysis to criticize the use of faith to incite violence.

Cuidados...

[S_87]

:sl:

hehe already protests

[sonz]

Muslims Fume at Pope's Islam Jibe

WORLD CAPITALS — Pope Benedict XVI's criticism of Islam and the Islamic concept of Jihad as unreasonable and against God's nature has sparked furor in the Muslim world on Thursday, September 14, amid calls for the pontiff to retract his remarks.

"These remarks are unacceptable and demonstrate ignorance of the Muslim faith," Mohamed Kanaan, the chief judge of the Supreme Shari`ah Courts in Lebanon, told the Doha-based Al-Jazeera channel.

"The remarks only play into the hands of those seeking to tarnish the image of Islam."

In what some Vatican watchers see as a watershed speech to academics on Tuesday, September 12, Benedict had portrayed Islam as a religion which endorses violence, where faith is "spread by the sword".

Using the words, "Jihad" and "Holy War" in lecture at the University of Regensburg, he quoted criticism of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessing be upon him) by a 14th Century Byzantine Christian emperor.

"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 Manuel II.

In Morocco, the daily Aujourd'hui said the pope's remarks have upset a million Muslims around the globe.

"The global outcry over the calamitous cartoons (of Prophet Muhammad) has only just died down and now the pontiff, in all his holiness, is launching an attack against Islam," it said.

Last September, a series of lampooning cartoons of Prophet Muhammad printed by a Danish daily and republished by European newspapers sparked a global outcry.

The daily urged the pope, as political leader of the Roman Catholic Church, to "quickly prove that his ambition is not to spark a war of religions."

Hatred

Mazyek said the Roman Catholic Church, which had violent chapters, should not point a finger at extremist activities in other religions.

Chief judge Kanaan asked Pope Benedict to retract his insulting remarks.

"He must apologize," he told the Doha-based broadcaster.

The remarks have also drawn fire from Turkey's highest religious authority, reported Agence France-Presse (AFP).

"The remarks reflect the hatred in his heart. It is a statement full of enmity and grudge," Ali Bardakoglu, the head of Turkey's religious affairs directorate, told the NTV news channel.

"It is a prejudiced and biased approach," he added.

Bardakoglu said the pope was not welcome in Turkey unless retracting his remarks.

"I do not think any good will come from the visit to the Muslim world of a person who has such ideas about Islam's prophet. He should first of all replace the grudge in his heart with moral values and respect for the other."

Pope Benedict is expected in Turkey on November 28-30 on an invitation from the Turkish government and the Ecumenical Orthodox Patriarchate in Istanbul.

In 2004, the pontiff caused a stir by opposing Turkey's accession into the European Union.

He said Turkey should seek its future in an association of Islamic nations, not with the EU, which has Christian roots.

Bloody History

Ejaz Ahmed, a member of an Italian governmental consultative committee on Islam, also criticized the Vatican pope, reported Italy's ANSA news agency.

"In his speech the pope overlooks the fact that Islam was the cradle of science and that Muslims were the first to translate Greek philosophers before they became part of European history," he said.

"The Muslim world is currently undergoing a deep crisis and any attack from the West can aggravate this crisis," he said.

Aiman Mazyek, the president of Germany's Central Council of Muslims, said the history of the Roman Catholic Church had violent chapters.

"After the bloodstained conversions in South America, the crusades in the Muslim world, the coercion of the Church by Hitler's regime, and even the coining of the phrase 'holy war' by Pope Urban II, I do not think the Church should point a finger at extremist activities in other religions," he told the Sueddeutsche Zeitung newspaper.

Haken al-Mutairi, Secretary General of Kuwait's Umma party asked Pope Benedict to immediately apologize "to the Muslim world for his calumnies against the Prophet Muhammed and Islam".

Mutairi hit out at the pope's "unaccustomed and unprecedented" remarks, and linked the Catholic Church leader's comments to "new Western wars currently under way in the Muslim world in places such as Afghanistan, Iraq and Lebanon".

The pope's statements amounted to "the pursuit of crusades", he told AFP.

"I call on all Arab and Islamic states to recall their ambassadors from the Vatican and expel those from the Vatican until the pope says he is sorry for the wrong done to the Prophet and to Islam, which preaches peace, tolerance, justice and equality."

Mutairi urged Christian and Muslim religious leaders to "spread the values of tolerance and clemency preached by the prophets Jesus and Muhammed".

http://www.islam-online.net/English/...09/14/04.shtml

[Islamicboy]

has he forgotten that Christianity has spread the same way. How else do you think Islam and CHRISTIANITY spread. G-d taught to never conquer and convert anyone. They had to make the choice on there own.

Thank G-d Judaism never taught to convert people in mass like some of our counterparts on earth. Only 14 million Jews on earth, yet we seem to be in the news, winning prizes, creating new things, producing scientific papers, and accomplishing so much. Only 14 million and we truly have accomplished the impossible already.

This is off topic but jews are less in this world because of the following reasons.

1. Holocaust 6 millions jews were killed maybe more
2. People cannot become jew or convert to jewish religion claimed by some jewish scholars
3. Jews have been attacked and killed in almost every single land they lived in.
4. Jewish religion came before islam and christianity when christinaity came many jews had converted to christianity then islam came many jews had converted to islam.
5. Muslims or christians dont convert to Judaism.
6. There are not alot of jewish scholars going around the world teaching about the jewish religion

Therefore the reason there are more muslims and christians because these are the most recent religions. You can never force conversion on anyone because after you leave most likely they will go back to there religion.

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

well some still do convert to judaism, maybe mostly Christians.

[Kidman]

http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/13/world/europe/13pope.html&OQ=_rQ3D1&OP=3fbf7517Q2FlQ7E0Cl6gar3gg jflfBBJlBXl)1lQ7Eg3d6l053g!0l)1!g!0ERjbd

Pope Assails Secularism, Adding Note on Jihad
By IAN FISHER
Published: September 13, 2006
In a speech, the pope said jihadi violence is contrary to reason and God’s plan.

Read the article if you can...

Kidman

[glo]

I've seen a video of his speech. What he said was: Muhammed brought nothing new to teh world that is good, only bad things such as spreading religion by the sword. (astagfurallah)
Is that offensive to me? Defenitly! To see the most honorable and respectfull man of history slandered in such a way hurts me deeply.

I agree, Steve. That was an offensive and insensitive thing to say. :(
Especially bearing in mind that Christianity has a pretty bloody past itself! :cry:
I wonder what will come out of this ...:?

I agree with this, though:
"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."

Peace to you, Steve.

[Abdul Fattah]

Thanks Glo, it's comforting to see that not everybody agrees with him.
May peace be with you to.

[rubiesand]

God is not pleased by blood

I don't understand. According to Christianity, is God not pleased -astaghfirullah- with the blood of Jesus (pbuh)?

[wilberhum]

I don't understand. According to Christianity, is God not pleased -astaghfirullah- with the blood of Jesus (pbuh)?

With that correlation, it is easy to understand why you don't understand.

[KAding]

Looking at history it sounds pretty hypocritical of him to accuse Islam of that. But yes, it was insensitive. I'm sure it'll lead to lots of rioting (and maybe even some deaths) by Muslims trying to disprove his comments.

[Al-Zaara]

Looking at history it sounds pretty hypocritical of him to accuse Islam of that. But yes, it was insensitive. I'm sure it'll lead to lots of rioting (and maybe even some deaths) by Muslims trying to disprove his comments.

Now take it easy. Let's not say such things, just hope for the best, which means no useless killing.

If people would start to kill everyone who has said something bad about Islam or Prophet Muhammed (saas) infront of a crowd, or to other people around him...
All that can be said is, the human population would have derceased drastically.

The way we Muslims best can proove that the Pope is wrong with his statement, is to follow the Prophet's (saas) Sunnah and show a true Muslim's character, inshallah. :)

:w:

[Abdul Fattah]

Looking at history it sounds pretty hypocritical of him to accuse Islam of that. But yes, it was insensitive. I'm sure it'll lead to lots of rioting (and maybe even some deaths) by Muslims trying to disprove his comments.

Now that's what I would call ironic.

[glo]

I don't understand. According to Christianity, is God not pleased -astaghfirullah- with the blood of Jesus (pbuh)?

I don't think that the issue at hand here. :rollseyes

"Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats"

He is talking about people being converted to another faith, and how that should not be done by violent means ... don't you think? :?

Peace.

[glo]

Thanks Glo, it's comforting to see that not everybody agrees with him.
May peace be with you to.

I wouldn't say that I disagree with what the Pope says per se ... but I do in this particular case. :)

[Woodrow]

Looking at history it sounds pretty hypocritical of him to accuse Islam of that. But yes, it was insensitive. I'm sure it'll lead to lots of rioting (and maybe even some deaths) by Muslims trying to disprove his comments.

Interesting comment.

Sadly, I think you do believe it to be true. I hope you have seen enough of us to have some awareness that would not be an action justified by our Beliefs.

Yes, we do have our share of people that tend to use any issue as an excuse to act with violence. But, keep in mind those who act in that manner would do so no matter what religious belief they followed. They act on their own and from their own emotions, not out of love of Allah(swt) and not out of Islamic belief.

[rubiesand]

I think what he is trying to do is paint Christianity as eshewing bloodshed and violence and implying that this is in contrast to Islam. It is a doomed attempt when a violent and blood-drenched human sacrifice is essential to the salvation of the Chrisitan, while for the Muslim, not only are we free from requiring blood for salvation, but plainly and clearly Allah tells us 'There is no compulsion in religion.' This Pope's words are like those of a tortoise trying to tell an eagle how to fly.

[~Stranger~]

:sl:
does anyoen know why did he say that or was it out of the blue??
:w:

[InToTheRain]

:sl:

When I heard what the Pope said about Mohammad(SAW) it was depressing. To think the a man whom all christians have respect for, I man of religion, say such a thing just shows how ignorant people are about Islam.

However its nice to know not all christians see this way. The Pope should apologise if he truly wants peace and given his influence he should also word his opinions carefully.

:w:

[Ibn Abi Ahmed]

:sl:

25: 9. See how they coin similitudes for you (O Muhammad

), so they have gone astray, and they cannot find a (Right) Path.

43: 82. Glorified be the Lord of the heavens and the earth, the Lord of the Throne! Exalted be He from all that they ascribe (to Him).

43: 83. So leave them (alone) to speak nonsense and play until they meet the Day of theirs, which they have been promised.


:w:

[KAding]

Interesting comment.

I was somewhat cynical, I apologize for that.

Sadly, I think you do believe it to be true.

Yes, unfortunately I would not be suprised. The cartoon row has shown me it probably is true?

I hope you have seen enough of us to have some awareness that would not be an action justified by our Beliefs.

In no way do I believe Muslims in general support such rioting. But to be honest, I can't say whether Islam does or does not justify it. I am not knowledgable enough to say. All I can say is that it is my impression that Islam is serious about defending itself, but I doubt it allows such 'private initiative' on this matter.

Yes, we do have our share of people that tend to use any issue as an excuse to act with violence. But, keep in mind those who act in that manner would do so no matter what religious belief they followed. They act on their own and from their own emotions, not out of love of Allah(swt) and not out of Islamic belief.

Sorry. I don't believe that. I believe those who are now outraged are so outraged exactly because they love Allah so much and feel a need to defend him.

[Keltoi]

I found it odd that the Pope decided to quote a statement from the 14th century. I'm still trying to figure that one out.

[therebbe]

we never force anyone to convert to islam

I believe when Lavi made his statement that many of you bashed him for, he was refering to the hypocrisy of a Christian critisizing Islam for spreading by the sword.

1. Holocaust 6 millions jews were killed maybe more

True.

2. People cannot become jew or convert to jewish religion claimed by some jewish scholars

Untrue. It just takes about a year.

3. Jews have been attacked and killed in almost every single land they lived in.

True. Part of G-d's test of our faith.

4. Jewish religion came before islam and christianity when christinaity came many jews had converted to christianity then islam came many jews had converted to islam.

Not very true.

5. Muslims or christians dont convert to Judaism.

Completly untrue. There are Muslim converts to Judaism in My Shul!

6. There are not alot of jewish scholars going around the world teaching about the jewish religion

That is because we do not spread our thoughts. All we spread is what the Torah says for gentiles(nonjews) to do like the seven laws. If you wish to convert you must find us.


But we are way off topic. :playing:

[doodlebug]

"Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul," added the pontiff in his own words.


Did the Vatican ever apologize for the hundreds of years of ordering little boys to be castrated for the sake of art since their voice would sound higher when they sang?:rollseyes

[doodlebug]

In November of 1095, Pope Urban II initiated the first European attempt at colonizing the Muslim world - known in the West as the Crusades - by drawing this fateful picture:
For you must hasten to carry aid to your brethren dwelling in the East, who need your help, which they have often asked. For the Turks, a Persian people, have attacked them I exhort you with earnest prayer - not I, but God - that, as heralds of Christ, you urge men by frequent exhortation, men of all ranks, knights as well as foot soldiers, rich as well as poor, to hasten to exterminate this vile race from the lands of your brethren Christ commands it. And if those who set out thither should lose their lives on the way by land, or in crossing the sea, or in fighting the pagans, their sins shall be remitted. Oh what a disgrace, if a race so despised, base, and the instrument of demons, should so overcome a people endowed with faith in the all-powerful God, and resplendent with the name of Christ. Let those who have been accustomed to make private war against the faithful carry on to a successful issue a war against the infidels. Let those who for a long time have been robbers now become soldiers of Christ. Let those who fought against brothers and relatives now fight against these barbarians. Let them zealously undertake the journey under the guidance of the Lord. [15]

http://www.crusades.org/popecall.htm

[I R Paki]

Shows he has little understanding of Islam.

[Woodrow]

Shows he has little understanding of Islam.

Excellant summation of all that has been said in this thread.

[I R Paki]

Thought Id post it anyway. We are putting down our opinions right?

[Woodrow]

Thought Id post it anyway. We are putting down our opinions right?

It was an excellent observation. You had summerized what the whole issue is really about.

[Rou]

whatever his understanding the damage has been done and the ripples will worsen not fade in this one...

i read what he said and the context of how he said it i have read his speech and there was no need whatsoever for that quote and once he had said it he did not refer to it as being an untrue view of islam he should have stated clearly that this quote was made but is a total incorrect view of islam.

now the problem is those who will argue about this majority of christians who follow him and the other ones who are just ignorant just say he was right and why should he apolgise there ignorance just makes the wound deeper...

look at the AOL vote on wether he should apolgise....almost 68% say he shudnt this but proves ignorance...

a colluge at work started the conversation with me in which stated that he (pope) did not mean it as an insult!! why all the uproar?

i tried to explain...

at which point i was told that the pope stated that this was when muhammed was weak and not in power?

now to those who have read the speech you will see what my colluge was trying to say...and also that this makes no sense....

they see everything but the truth...which public figure who talks to millions of muslims has stated anything about christians?? as a religon or judaisem?

the religon is left out of it but seems constantly islam is attacked and then where left with oh why u getting mad!??

ignorance...

and to my brothers and sisters there is no way out of this as they will refuse to understand it is stated that they will not understand and its clear they dont apart from a few...majority beleive there was no insult in the popes words...

it but only proves the clarity of islams path...

slap any man in the face and he will get mad...im sure the pope is aware of this....his statment was no mistake...

[glo]

In November of 1095, Pope Urban II initiated the first European attempt at colonizing the Muslim world - known in the West as the Crusades - by drawing this fateful picture:
For you must hasten to carry aid to your brethren dwelling in the East, who need your help, which they have often asked. For the Turks, a Persian people, have attacked them I exhort you with earnest prayer - not I, but God - that, as heralds of Christ, you urge men by frequent exhortation, men of all ranks, knights as well as foot soldiers, rich as well as poor, to hasten to exterminate this vile race from the lands of your brethren Christ commands it. And if those who set out thither should lose their lives on the way by land, or in crossing the sea, or in fighting the pagans, their sins shall be remitted. Oh what a disgrace, if a race so despised, base, and the instrument of demons, should so overcome a people endowed with faith in the all-powerful God, and resplendent with the name of Christ. Let those who have been accustomed to make private war against the faithful carry on to a successful issue a war against the infidels. Let those who for a long time have been robbers now become soldiers of Christ. Let those who fought against brothers and relatives now fight against these barbarians. Let them zealously undertake the journey under the guidance of the Lord. [15]

http://www.crusades.org/popecall.htm

Ex-smokers and ex-drinkers always condemn the loudest. The same is often the case for apostates.
Speak to ex-Muslims, ex-Christians and ex-atheists, and they will condemn their previous beliefs more than anybody else (and usually they have good reasons, such as personal hurts and damage)

Doodlebug, I don't know much about Catholicism. I am sure that what you are saying is correct, but for the sake of mutual understanding, inter-faith peace and continued harmony on this board I would implore you not to widen the rift between the faiths by highlighting wrongs committed in the dark past.

Perhaps we should focus on the problems of the present times, and how we can peacefully resolve them.
Not, by adding to the anger and tension, I am sure. :cry:

I hope you take this post as it is indended - in a peaceful and caring way.

God bless you. :)

[doodlebug]

Ex-smokers and ex-drinkers always condemn the loudest. The same is often the case for apostates.
Speak to ex-Muslims, ex-Christians and ex-atheists, and they will condemn their previous beliefs more than anybody else (and usually they have good reasons, such as personal hurts and damage)

Actually when I was Catholic I condemned the Crusades just as loud. Not change whatsoever.

Doodlebug, I don't know much about Catholicism. I am sure that what you are saying is correct, but for the sake of mutual understanding, inter-faith peace and continued harmony on this board I would implore you not to widen the rift between the faiths by highlighting wrongs committed in the dark past.

Well I think the Pope should do the same. And he's waaaaaaaaaaaay more of an authority figure than I am.

[glo]

Actually when I was Catholic I condemned the Crusades just as loud. Not change whatsoever.

I agree, doodlebug.
I am ashamed of the crusades, and I condemn them just as you do.

Well I think the Pope should do the same. And he's waaaaaaaaaaaay more of an authority figure than I am.

I just heard on the radio that the Pope has made a apology. Do you know any more about it? I will have to go and check ...

Peace :)

[Jayda]

The Holy Father apologized today that Muslims were offended by his speech...

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...NEg&refer=home

im going to go... cuidados

[Rou]

the pope has apolgised and that is what was asked for that should be the end of it for us indeed the ripples of what has been said will affect muslims and non-muslims alike but we asked for an apology and it came end of...

if anything it taught me that many followers of the pope are willing to protect his words even with lies and that only shows me ignorance the speed of the apology however does matter and it was made within the time it took USA and UK to stop the attack on lebanon so....

let us see what the future brings...

may allah give us and others the strength to endure...

[blunderbus]

There have been violent attacks on Churches in the ME because of the Pope's comments. This is beginning to be a pattern. Some non-muslim says or writes or draws something that offends Muslims and violence and bloodshed is the response. (Danish cartoons, Rushdie, Van Gogh, etc) You don't see a parallel in ANY modern religion except Islam. The need to respond violently to mere words.

P.S. You want to talk about ignorance? How about attacking a Greek Orthodox church for the words of the Catholic Pope.

[glo]

There have been violent attacks on Churches in the ME because of the Pope's comments. This is beginning to be a pattern. Some non-muslim says or writes or draws something that offends Muslims and violence and bloodshed is the response. (Danish cartoons, Rushdie, Van Gogh, etc) You don't see a parallel in ANY modern religion except Islam. The need to respond violently to mere words.

P.S. You want to talk about ignorance? How about attacking a Greek Orthodox church for the words of the Catholic Pope.

That's sad isn't it?
Bad enough that the Pope makes an ill-advised insulting comment which connects Islam with violence ... and then some Muslims seem to think it's a good idea to commit acts which seemingly prove him right ... :cry:

Let's not forget that these people are by far the minority.
And lets hope that these remain to be isolated incidents.

peace

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

Yea...thats really wrong..=\

[جوري]

So now it is the pope.... and a far cry he is from the previous one.... not so long ago he was attacked for his so-called Nazi roots or support for "nazism" ? but now in light of Bush's losses ... he (the bush that is) incites here and there support from other countries in his so-called war against "terrorism" in essence just Islam...so it wouldn't just be his evangelical church but the Roman catholic as well.... with support and sympathy from south American countries such as The Venezuelan chavez to Arabs and Muslims ... undoubtedly Bush and his cronies throughout the world wish to arouse a catholic revolt against Muslims....if he can get enough of a provocation from the Muslim world to revolt against the pope so that such countries who sympathize with Islamic causes are angered turn with Bush against the Muslims then he can strengthen his grip ... like the previous lowly toons made in Denmark and spreading like wild fire all over Europe to get all of Europe to "unite against a common enemy" he hopes to gain new incentive with this new event....It is all so comedically timed for those of us discerning and paying attention... I truly detest the ******* and his satanic grip on the world.... I think Muslims should consider the next move very carefully ... we need to be wise ... less emotional more aware ... why do we not address these issues with Muslim scholars to find the best approach rather than the usual absent mindedness in response ... what do other members think?

[ManchesterFolk]

It happens both ways:

How about we learn to respect???

What if Christians made an advertisement in the newspapers of Saudi Arabia announcing that we have a lot in common, we love Muslims and respect their religion, but we don’t believe Allah is God or Muhammad is a prophet of the God of the Bible?

Would they let us run these advertisements in their newspapers?
Would they see this as an expression of love and respect?
The answer is a resounding NO. Not only would they not allow such advertisements, but the Muslim world (as usual) would go into a rage with uproar of insults and cries of accusations against all Christians for blaspheming their prophet and Allah, followed by fatwas to kill the people that dared to even suggest those advertisements.

Well, this is exactly what CAIR is doing to the Christians of America and the world by putting these deceiving, blasphemous and hugely insulting ads on the pages of American newspapers. And to add insult to injury, CAIR offers us the poison wrapped in Islamic honey as an act of love and respect, expecting us to swallow it with tears of gratitude in our eyes and choked of emotion as we, the kafirs that believe falsely in a God incarnate Jesus of the Bible, rejoice and recite after CAIR thank you Islam.

[Rou]

There have been violent attacks on Churches in the ME because of the Pope's comments. This is beginning to be a pattern. Some non-muslim says or writes or draws something that offends Muslims and violence and bloodshed is the response. (Danish cartoons, Rushdie, Van Gogh, etc) You don't see a parallel in ANY modern religion except Islam. The need to respond violently to mere words.

P.S. You want to talk about ignorance? How about attacking a Greek Orthodox church for the words of the Catholic Pope.

lol i see no one denying that to attack a church for the words of the pope is a bad thing?

of course it is and yes indeed ignorant..as i stated an apology made and thats fair enough but lets not forget that this will affect the world and im sure we are all aware of the balance of peace and war at the moment perhaps the pope shud have thought about that before using such examples without explaining them...

you say no other religon reacts in this way? thats beacuse we dont take lightly to anyone over stepping the line with our religon allah comes first then everything else...

and apart from that we dont have the law on our side for someone to insult islam is not looked into on the other hand deny the holocaust (and im not doing that im showing an example) and you could be jailed as was a certain professor for five years...

wether he deserved it or not is not what im on about my point is the same does not apply for islam...

i am glad my people dont take lightly to religous slander that does not mean attacking churches thats just either the enemies of islam playing there cards or dumb ignorant muslims attacking a house of god that in any terms is wrong...

but lets not play the any modern religon etc...there are many atrocities carried out by christians and jews aswell as muslims. but again are those truly followers of that religon? or just misled people...

i dont judge a religon by the acts a few of its followers and urge you not to either...

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

It happens both ways:

How about we learn to respect???

What if Christians made an advertisement in the newspapers of Saudi Arabia announcing that we have a lot in common, we love Muslims and respect their religion, but we don’t believe Allah is God or Muhammad is a prophet of the God of the Bible?

Would they let us run these advertisements in their newspapers?
Would they see this as an expression of love and respect?
The answer is a resounding NO. Not only would they not allow such advertisements, but the Muslim world (as usual) would go into a rage with uproar of insults and cries of accusations against all Christians for blaspheming their prophet and Allah, followed by fatwas to kill the people that dared to even suggest those advertisements.

Well, this is exactly what CAIR is doing to the Christians of America and the world by putting these deceiving, blasphemous and hugely insulting ads on the pages of American newspapers. And to add insult to injury, CAIR offers us the poison wrapped in Islamic honey as an act of love and respect, expecting us to swallow it with tears of gratitude in our eyes and choked of emotion as we, the kafirs that believe falsely in a God incarnate Jesus of the Bible, rejoice and recite after CAIR thank you Islam.

Wow...u should be a leader of the ignorants...sad...
and u get upset when someone insults u on here? wth u doing? speaking words of honey?
get real son..

[Muezzin]

There have been violent attacks on Churches in the ME because of the Pope's comments. This is beginning to be a pattern. Some non-muslim says or writes or draws something that offends Muslims and violence and bloodshed is the response. (Danish cartoons, Rushdie, Van Gogh, etc) You don't see a parallel in ANY modern religion except Islam. The need to respond violently to mere words.

Yes, you do. Some crazy Christian extremists like to burn down abortion clinics; some insane Hindu extremists like to kill Christian business men who are accused of killing their wives; some nutty Buddhist extremists like to target churches in Sri Lanka.

I'm seeing a pattern. A lot of modern religions have their violent fruitcakes, not just Islam, and all of said nutters should be dealt with accordingly if they break the law.

[Ghazi]

:sl:

arouse a catholic revolt against Muslims....

Intresting but I don't think this would play well for either side when religion is mentioned along side conflict then people will be forced to take sides, thats why the US try and distence the current war in iraq and afganistan away from religion cause they realise that it'll result in Jihad, if anything it'll be a proxy war of words, anything more then it'll turn into a full scale conflict just look what happened over a few words.

[glo]

Interesting point, ManchesterFolk. :)

I think the problem is that it is actually incredibly difficult to
a) respect another faith, and yet at the same time to
b) disagree with it and believe it to be wrong.

I try to walk this path, but it is a very narrow path indeed. :uuh:

I don't know anything about CAIR. Do you have any more information or links? (If it takes this thread off topic, please PM me instead! Thanks.)

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

Stuff he is saying about the CAIR is bunch of crud in a basket. Just because it doesnt fit your mentality doesnt make u right.
http://www.cair-net.org/

[glo]

Yes, you do. Some crazy Christian extremists like to burn down abortion clinics; some insane Hindu extremists like to kill Christian business men who are accused of killing their wives; some nutty Buddhist extremists like to target churches in Sri Lanka.

I'm seeing a pattern. A lot of modern religions have their violent fruitcakes, not just Islam, and all of said nutters should be dealt with accordingly if they break the law.

Why do you feel the need to point the finger at other faiths right now, Muezzin?? (Please search your heart)
Do two wrongs make a right?
Why not just admit that people attacking churches in retaliation of the Pope's comments are wrong and that their acts should be condemned?

When will this endless tit-for-tat end??? :cry:

Time to take time out, I think ... (for me, I mean ...) :(

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

Glo, the point ur making is his point. He's pointing fingers at the Muslims for somethin every religion has, saying only Islam has it. He shouldnt be connecting their acts to "Islam." Its people who are misrepresenting Islam.

[Muezzin]

It happens both ways:

How about we learn to respect???

What if Christians made an advertisement in the newspapers of Saudi Arabia announcing that we have a lot in common, we love Muslims and respect their religion, but we don’t believe Allah is God or Muhammad is a prophet of the God of the Bible?

Would they let us run these advertisements in their newspapers?
Would they see this as an expression of love and respect?
The answer is a resounding NO. Not only would they not allow such advertisements, but the Muslim world (as usual) would go into a rage with uproar of insults and cries of accusations against all Christians for blaspheming their prophet and Allah, followed by fatwas to kill the people that dared to even suggest those advertisements.

How can you possibly know that without even trying?

Well, this is exactly what CAIR is doing to the Christians of America and the world by putting these deceiving, blasphemous and hugely insulting ads on the pages of American newspapers. And to add insult to injury, CAIR offers us the poison wrapped in Islamic honey as an act of love and respect, expecting us to swallow it with tears of gratitude in our eyes and choked of emotion as we, the kafirs that believe falsely in a God incarnate Jesus of the Bible, rejoice and recite after CAIR thank you Islam.

Somewhere among that hate is a point and a reason for me not to warn you. I await clarification.

Why do you feel the need to point the finger at other faiths right now, Muezzin?? (Please search your heart)
Do two wrongs make a right?
Why not just admit that people attacking churches in retaliation of the Pope's comments are wrong and that their acts should be condemned?

When will this endless tit-for-tat end??? :cry:

Time to take time out, I think ... (for me, I mean ...) :(

No, no, I agree with you. Their acts should be condemned. Attacking churches, burning effigies? This is not the way of Islam. Attacking churches is the way of a criminal, and burning effigies is just ludicrous.

I'm pointing out that other religions have their minority of idiots who shame the majority, too.

[glo]

Glo, the point ur making is his point. He's pointing fingers at the Muslims for somethin every religion has.

Perhaps you are right, Tayyaba.
Sorry, Muezzin, if I have taken your post the wrong way!!

I'm getting a bit defensive here ... all the more reason to take a breather ... :hiding:

Peace, guys.

[ManchesterFolk]

Wow...u should be a leader of the ignorants...sad...
and u get upset when someone insults u on here? wth u doing? speaking words of honey?
get real son..

I should be the leader of ignorants? Muslims get mad when Danes isnult their prophet and rightly so... Yet you say a Christian should not be angry when a Muslim group insults Christianity?

And I am the ignorant one?

Somewhere among that hate is a point and a reason for me not to warn you. I await clarification.

I just get angry when somone gets angry at a "Pope" for isnulting Islam, when Muslims have done the say. The point is that there are groups who insult people and ATTACKING A CHURCH, is not the way to EVER settle differences. I'm sorry if I offended you. I just get angry at this useless violence and insults take place when one must realize that ALL do it, and no religion is innocent. Islam or Christianity. You both have racidals, and both have psyco's out there. Just accept that there are some, and try and keep the peace. Violence is never the awnser and my post was to show insults have been done towards Christians as well.

[Rou]

It happens both ways:

How about we learn to respect???

What if Christians made an advertisement in the newspapers of Saudi Arabia announcing that we have a lot in common, we love Muslims and respect their religion, but we don’t believe Allah is God or Muhammad is a prophet of the God of the Bible?

Would they let us run these advertisements in their newspapers?
Would they see this as an expression of love and respect?
The answer is a resounding NO. Not only would they not allow such advertisements, but the Muslim world (as usual) would go into a rage with uproar of insults and cries of accusations against all Christians for blaspheming their prophet and Allah, followed by fatwas to kill the people that dared to even suggest those advertisements.

Well, this is exactly what CAIR is doing to the Christians of America and the world by putting these deceiving, blasphemous and hugely insulting ads on the pages of American newspapers. And to add insult to injury, CAIR offers us the poison wrapped in Islamic honey as an act of love and respect, expecting us to swallow it with tears of gratitude in our eyes and choked of emotion as we, the kafirs that believe falsely in a God incarnate Jesus of the Bible, rejoice and recite after CAIR thank you Islam.

lol how funny yes indeed and (as usual) there seems to be a need to express such views against islam???? and the always needed BUT...

seems people are obbsessed with having to have words with islam and its followers??

where have muslims posted comments about christians and there religons as would be or the jewish faith!??

we talk people not gods....or religon....

what muslim came over to UK or USA demanding u turn muslim or questioning christian faith on a media scale from saudia arabia or anywhere else????

it seems the west is obbsessed with insulting islam and then not taking any responsbility when people get ticked off?!???

look slap a bee hive and expect to get stung...

and over all mate if you have just said you respect muslim religon and then said you dont think they are part of the same god and muhammed was not a prophet then you have two contradicting situations???

so what would you expect a round of applause???

heres a message from me mate to christians and jews you ready???


"we are all brothers and sisters there are many lost muslims indeed just as there are many lost jews and christians in the end we are all following our religon and the one god may he give us the strength to find a peaceful and unified future peace be upon you."

here go print that in your newspapers and see how many rise in anger!?

When you print an insult expect anger when you print in peace expect peace...

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

I should be the leader of ignorants? Muslims get mad when Danes isnult their prophet and rightly so... Yet you say a Christian should not be angry when a Muslim group insults Christianity?

And I am the ignorant one?

No one is saying u cannot get angry. I dont like it either when the so called Muslims do that because Islam forbids it!
We dont like when people criticise any prophet of the Abrahamic faiths. Excuse you but when did i say u cant get angry? Why are u inventing words in ur head? Yea your are ignorant..

[Muezzin]

I just get angry when somone gets angry at a "Pope" for isnulting Islam, when Muslims have done the say. The point is that there are groups who insult people and ATTACKING A CHURCH, is not the way to EVER settle differences.

I agree. I hope the culprits are prosecuted.

I'm sorry if I offended you. I just get angry at this useless violence and insults take place when one must realize that ALL do it, and no religion is innocent. Islam or Christianity.

I agree with you there. All religions have their fair share of violent fools who ruin things for the peaceful majority.

[glo]

I have feeling that we are all agreeing that people should not make attacks (verbal or physical) on each others religions, beliefs and faiths!
Perhaps we should all focus on that, rather than start doing the same to each other here! I'm getting quite upset about it ... :cry:

[blunderbus]

"Yes, you do. Some crazy Christian extremists like to burn down abortion clinics; some insane Hindu extremists like to kill Christian business men who are accused of killing their wives; some nutty Buddhist extremists like to target churches in Sri Lanka."

No you don't.
The examples you cited are for ACTS not WORDS. The Christian extremist bombs abortion clinics (which is wrong) for what they DO not what they SAY.

When a writer writes or a artist draws or a filmaker films something offensive to non-Muslims you don't see these violent often lethal demonstrations, or acts of homicide at anywhere near the same frequency as when Muslims are offended.

Some on this very board have claimed it's a good thing that Muslims are so protective of their religion. Fine, but if you think violence is a valid response to insulting words you are not a peaceful person. If it is a part of Islam then Islam is not a peaceful religion.

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

Wow u mixed so much up i wana laff at u...hard!! LOL.
You say what the Christians did are wrong...we believe the same thing in case of the "Muslims" who do the same! We dont agree, try reading the posts man, honestly! Violence at civilians is NOT, i repeat NOT NOT NOT a valid reason. Islam forbids it!! We basically answered all this a few times before your post, but u didnt read. Well read now!...k thnx..

[blunderbus]

Am I mixed up?
Rou stated
"you say no other religon reacts in this way? thats beacuse we dont take lightly to anyone over stepping the line with our religon allah comes first then everything else..."

So violence is ok in defense of Islam? Even when defending it from offensive words or pictures?

[Muezzin]

No you don't.
The examples you cited are for ACTS not WORDS. The Christian extremist bombs abortion clinics (which is wrong) for what they DO not what they SAY.

So the murder suspect in the Hindu extremist link must have actually done it then?

When a writer writes or a artist draws or a filmaker films something offensive to non-Muslims you don't see these violent often lethal demonstrations, or acts of homicide at anywhere near the same frequency as when Muslims are offended.

Do not assume simply because you do not hear about other religous followers' antics at demonstrations as frequently as those of their Muslim counterparts, that the former do not frequently react violently. Case in point.

Some on this very board have claimed it's a good thing that Muslims are so protective of their religion. Fine, but if you think violence is a valid response to insulting words you are not a peaceful person. If it is a part of Islam then Islam is not a peaceful religion.

It's not a part of Islam to beome violent in anger. It's a part of some people's violent tendencies, and those people should be dealt with as the law of the land provides.

What is a part of Islam is to be protective about one's religion.

And the logic that because some on this forum say one thing, they must be reflecting what Islam teaches, is severely flawed so don't use it.

[blunderbus]

"And the logic that because some on this forum say one thing, they must be reflecting what Islam teaches, is severely flawed so don't use it."

I'm not concerned with what Islam teaches. I'm concerned with how it's self proclaimed adherents think and behave. Whether you consider them "real" Muslims or not is inconsequential.

Your link to the Buddist free for all is not at all analogous. They were not threatening violence to the members of another religion because of some percieved VERBAL offence.

My point is not that members of other religions are not violent. My point is that no adherents to any other modern religion are as quick to react with violence and even deadly violence to mere VERBAL or WRITTEN or DRAWN insults.

[~Stranger~]

:sl:

i hope now that he apologized everyone will let go of it and i hope non muslims will learn their lesson once and for all. this is not the first time ppl attack islam and the prophet for no appearant reason...

and the reason u dont hear about other religion followers being voilent coz when someone do something they dont mention his religion,. i mean mossoulini was christian right?? and what would u (christians) do if someone attacked jesus or drew offensive pics of him??

why shoulh we apologize for calling others in names when other attack our prophet whom we love more than our own selves saying he brought nothing but evil?? what would u think if we didnt do anything?? ud probably think it is true.

but i still dont think burning churches isnt the way to deal with it, i mean theyre not even catholics.

all i can say is: وادع الي سبيل ربك بالحكمة والموعظة الحسنة

:w:

[InToTheRain]

I'm not concerned with what Islam teaches. I'm concerned with how it's self proclaimed adherents think and behave.

Yes I too am concerned about this as well. Many of the brothers and sisters out there trying to guide the misguided.

My point is not that members of other religions are not violent. My point is that no adherents to any other modern religion are as quick to react with violence and even deadly violence to mere VERBAL or WRITTEN or DRAWN insults.

There are over 2 billion muslims in this world. What is the percentage of muslims who have reacted violently to what the Pope said when comparing with over 2 BILLION?

To say that you dont care what the Islam teaches and only care about the action of a very very Veeeery small number (Less then one percent of overall muslims poppulation!) of muslims who commit atrocities in the name of islam, even though islam condemns such atrocities, is very ignorant of you. Indeed one questions why you have joined this forum?

Indeed if every individual were to think like you Islam wouldn't be the fastest growing religion in the world. If i thought like you I wouldn't be a Muslim (Mashallah I am) let alone anything else! Many have the common sense to judge islam based on the ideals taught by the Qur'an and sunnah. The guidance from these two sources must be adhered to by all who claim to be muslims. Similiarly I judge other beleif, way of life and system based on the ideals it teaches.

If you ask me to write derogatory comments about other beliefs and way of life based on the actions of a individuals who have those beliefs then my literature would be endless. Every individual can be classified into a category of belief, such as athiests, agnostic, apostate, budhist, christians etc. Lets not have double standards and look at the atrocities commited by Bush, a christian leader (or so he claims!) AGAINST THE MUSLIMS. Lets not forget the atrocities commited by Israel, a jewish nation (Or so they claim!) AGAINST THE MUSLIMS.
On the contrary the number of muslims dying due to oppression from corrupt leaders, both foreign and national, are the highest. The oppression has reached such extremes some result to commiting suicide which is forbidden by Islam. And when muslims try to defend them selves many find ways to critisise them.

Why is it that Muslims are always involved when you hear the affairs of the world? Its because it is the only way of life/religion which incorperates both corperal and spiritual aspects of life. It is the only way of life with a practical guide to all aspects of life, from birth to death. It is so complete and perfect many see its ideals as a threat because it will bring an end to their selfish way of life.

I dare say no one can prove from Quran,the devine revelation from the one true God, that Islam promotes violence towards mankind as a whole. Our prophet Mohammad(SAW) followed the Quran perfectly and in doing so earned the title best of all creation.

Peace

[lavikor201]

earned the title best of all creation.

According to Muslims of course.

The 4.5 Billion in the world believe him to be a fake or have no relevance to their lives. Just to clarify this.

[Rou]

"Yes, you do. Some crazy Christian extremists like to burn down abortion clinics; some insane Hindu extremists like to kill Christian business men who are accused of killing their wives; some nutty Buddhist extremists like to target churches in Sri Lanka."

No you don't.
The examples you cited are for ACTS not WORDS. The Christian extremist bombs abortion clinics (which is wrong) for what they DO not what they SAY.

When a writer writes or a artist draws or a filmaker films something offensive to non-Muslims you don't see these violent often lethal demonstrations, or acts of homicide at anywhere near the same frequency as when Muslims are offended.

Some on this very board have claimed it's a good thing that Muslims are so protective of their religion. Fine, but if you think violence is a valid response to insulting words you are not a peaceful person. If it is a part of Islam then Islam is not a peaceful religion.

seems you have a problem with muslims getting angry with people who write or say things about there religon??

so with your example we should just calmly sit there while people insult our prophet and our religon?? (not saying attacking churches is the right action mind you) im talking getting angry?

look mate i for one am glad muslims dont sit quitley while people walk over there religon and use there belifs as jest as happens in the west its called respect for your maker!

as many have already stated to you without yourself listening that is ..that no one here is saying attacking churches is the right action...that is againt islam not that it sounds like you wish to hear that or consider that to be true as we all stated we cant contril every so called muslim just as every christian cant be controlled...

simple...

however if you expect muslims to keep there mouth shut then thats your issue...thats a joke to me i pray more people take there faith in such a manner that no one ever thinks they may speak about jesus PBUH in such a manner to disrespect him but unfortunatly this is common in the west to make jest of that which is holy with no fear...

with muslims THERE IS a line and it should not be crossed...

just beacuse its ok in the west to disrespect holy prophets or places that does not mean you should expect the same from all faiths...

wether words or writings disrespect is disrespect....we dont all live by your rules..

[Rou]

Am I mixed up?
Rou stated
"you say no other religon reacts in this way? thats beacuse we dont take lightly to anyone over stepping the line with our religon allah comes first then everything else..."

So violence is ok in defense of Islam? Even when defending it from offensive words or pictures?

if your reffering to my posts then dont ask others im right here :?

u seem to read more than is stated hey?? why not ask instead of making up assumptions...

however i will explain...

yes if a person goes too far indeed sometimes it may become violent but as i stated not against any innocents?

lol if bob stepped on the quran i would break HIS leg not jims understand??

i would not attack a church if a christian called bob stepped on a quran beacuse the christian faith has not insulted me only bob has and indeed he would have much to fear...

if this does not make sense to you then well...what more can i say if you dont mind someone stepping on your bible and your fine with that then that is your issue and you will answer to god not me...

[Abdul Fattah]

In no way do I believe Muslims in general support such rioting. But to be honest, I can't say whether Islam does or does not justify it. I am not knowledgable enough to say. All I can say is that it is my impression that Islam is serious about defending itself, but I doubt it allows such 'private initiative' on this matter.

Well there are strict regulations to what is permissable in jihad and when it is permisable. Even the destruction of proporty isn't alowed. Muslims have been instructed by the Prophet not to pillage or plunder or destroy residential areas, nor harm the property of anyone not fighting. It has been narrated in the Hadith: "The Prophet has prohibited the Believers from loot and plunder" (Bukhari, Abu Dawood) So much for teh riots.
there's a lot more rules where that one came from, here's the major lines:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_war_in_Islam

Sorry. I don't believe that. I believe those who are now outraged are so outraged exactly because they love Allah so much and feel a need to defend him.

I see where your coming from, but what Woodrow meant; or at least what I think he meant, I can't speak in his place obviously. Is that these guys don't act out of obediance to Allah since they violate his rules. No they act out of vanity and self love. They don't have the power to swallow their vanity when someone else says they are wrong, and feel teh need to act upon it. Retaliation is never a defensive action.

[Rou]

"And the logic that because some on this forum say one thing, they must be reflecting what Islam teaches, is severely flawed so don't use it."

I'm not concerned with what Islam teaches. I'm concerned with how it's self proclaimed adherents think and behave. Whether you consider them "real" Muslims or not is inconsequential.

Your link to the Buddist free for all is not at all analogous. They were not threatening violence to the members of another religion because of some percieved VERBAL offence.

My point is not that members of other religions are not violent. My point is that no adherents to any other modern religion are as quick to react with violence and even deadly violence to mere VERBAL or WRITTEN or DRAWN insults.

?? this is totally contradictrey to whay you have been on about all along this thread then why are you talking about islam at all??? talk about christians and jews and all humans who suddenley decide its ok to knock someone out beacuse there drunk and feel like causing trouble!?

someone who uses words to insult islam will be taught with words that what they say is untrue and if they persist to insult islam then i doubt a muslim will stand by and let someone insult them...

would a human who can over power another human sit there and let the other insult there mother??? very doubtful...

however that seems fine to get in to a fight overe someone insulting there mother but to fight for your religon is strange is it???

within islam it is stated to protect your religon...im not saying to use violence against anyone who would say things about islam but i will not lie and say i will stand by while someone continues to insult my prophet or religon...

then again in the west i have seen 98% of violence is non religon based so u can hardley say its due to religon so does that make it more accepted does it!? majority of violence in the west is by drunks , thieves and random acts of violence also other unecessary acts...

is that better is it? how much happy slapping of OAP's do you see in the middle east?

[~Stranger~]

:sl:

some non muslim writers have chosen the prophet to be the most important person in the history....

:w:

[~Stranger~]

and no one said attacking churches is a good response to the popes words as this whole thread has been saying..

:sl:
this sums everything up perfectly, now stop going in circles, some of the things said r just ridiculous and comes to show how ignorant about islam some ppl can be

and i think its time to go back to the original topic, shall we?
:w:

[Hawa]

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...s-attacks.html

I think this sister said it best, we muslims should really consider our reactions..lets all calm down (woosaa...) say Alhamdulillah, Allah gave us a huge blessing in the form of the Prophet (saw) and ofcourse our beautiful deen, is this the message they mock at? :?

In the Name of Allah, The Beneficent The Merciful

Say: He is God, the one and only;
God, the Eternal, Absolute;
He begetteth not, nor is He begotten;
And there is none like unto Him.

[akulion]

very bad of this dude to do this

in this time of conflict instead of sowing a seed of understanding and universal brotherhood he is sowing seeds of hatered

disgusting

just my personal opinion he sure does look evil there

[Iconoclast]

does anyoen know why did he say that or was it out of the blue??

:sl:

Simple he wanted media attention and we Muslims are famous for make ppl and their statement famous

:sl:

[Ninth_Scribe]

Ignorance. It's sad that this Pope will most likely hurt the good things that John-Paul established..

Don't even get me started... popes are a nasty subject with me. But I suppose that's for another place and time.

Ninth Scribe

[Iconoclast]

Btw the GERMAN pope apologized as soon as his mission ( media attention ) was attained . btw we'll make him famous ......... billy the kid has gone missing since he (pope ) spoke

[snakelegs]

I think Muslims should consider the next move very carefully ... we need to be wise ... less emotional more aware ... why do we not address these issues with Muslim scholars to find the best approach rather than the usual absent mindedness in response ... what do other members think?

good thread. i hope the reaction is peaceful and doesn't feed the islamophobes.

[Ghazi]

:sl:

why do we not address these issues with Muslim scholars to find the best approach rather than the usual absent mindedness in response ... what do other members think?

This is commen sense and doesn't need a scholar, the prophet(pbuh) said: "The strong one is he who controls him self when angry", Some muslims need to stop and think before ranting and raving while at the same time neglecting the sunnah it's ironic.

[hasib]

:sl:

You never know what is inside people's hearts.. maybe pope did genuinely say those things in stride or maybe he said it on purpose.. we wont know for sure :)

:w:

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

Yea, he stated what was said by the Pope in the past. So God knows what he was really thinking.
Allahu Alam

[blunderbus]

"seems you have a problem with muslims getting angry with people who write or say things about there religon??"

Not at all. Getting angry is fine, protesting is fine, letters to the editor, economic boycotts, burning in effigy... all fine. Killing people is not fine, not simply because they said or wrote something offensive. Never ever ever is it ok to do that.

It's called free speech.
"we dont all live by your rules"
That's just my point.

[Jayda]

...the Holy Father apologized for the misunderstanding... shouldnt that be the end of this?

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

Your missing out on the most important point. Those kinds of actions are completely wrong and have nuthing to do with Islam. If you still cannot comprehend it, I repeat! If you cannot comprehend it, stop going any further with ur posts. You'll jus be goin in circles. All ur gunna get is people hating u cuz u fail to listen.

[InToTheRain]

He has apologised and I guess that is a step in the right direction, but is it enough?

Shouln't he have also mentioned what he said was wrong and it was due to his ignorance?

It seems to be he just apologised inorder to have an excuse for any consequences his Islamaphobic speech might have...or am I wrong :?

Allah knows best.

[Jayda]

What did the Pope say that was ignorant? He is not an ignorant man, not being Muslim is not synonymous with being ignorant. He quoted a conversation from the 14th century to say something about religion without reason... his speech wasnt about Islam. The only reason he chose the quote is because of the present political climate of extremism... in fact in his speech he even goes out of his way to say that Mohammed said that Muslims cannot force people to convert, at a time that Mohammed was weakest and under attack... ultimately that was his point, violence does not please God so it should not be done in the name of God.

The media headlines all say "Pope calls Islam violent" and the Muslim world erupted into riots and vandalism but how many have actually read the speech? I posted it earlier and only Muezzin responded...

[جوري]

I agree with you... there is a hadith where a man came to the prophet for advise... and the prophet(PBUH) told him don't ever be angry... if you are angry and sitting lie down, if you are angry while standing then sit down....unfortunately people come with so many different mind sets ... we are hardly ever united on any front... Bush uses the word (Islam) in a psychological way ... if you ever listen to any of his half assed speeches... I am sure ... in fact I am certain someone else writes them for him ... so when he says it, a particular reaction is aroused en masse ... so long as he keeps a story coming everyday ... from such figures as the pope ... he can reach new audiences who naturally don't care much for him.... I can't believe this moron with a bird brain has this strong a grip on the world...... my only consolation is that at least I am hoping that ... people are waking up and seeing through the transparency of his charade.... thank you both for your participation

[Jayda]

We do not hate Muslims, we are not trying to harm Muslims, the Holy Father was misquoted.

[Ghazi]

We do not hate Muslims, we are not trying to harm Muslims, the Holy Father was misquoted.

:sl:

It was the style and tone, he didn't rebuff the claim after he made his statment of violence having no place in religion and this why people took offence, anyway it's done now he's apoligied.

[Jayda]

:sl:

It was the style and tone, he didn't rebuff the claim after he made his statment of violence having no place in religion and this why people took offence, anyway it's done now he's apoligied.

He made no statement of violence, he quoted a 14th century conversation to make a point about reason and religion. His style and tone was the same as it always was... a teachers. He wasnt talking about Islam at all. Ive watched all day while everybody said horrible things about Catholics and the Holy Father, but enough is enough the original post is just wrong.

[Jayda]

I dont think this is funny... all day ive been terrified to say anything in this thread at all while people have posted a steady stream of insults and ignorance toward the Holy Father and toward Catholicism. In the other thread somebody is saying that Catholics are now part of some vast global conspiracy against Islam all orchestrated by President Bush. Nobody has even for a minute considered that the Pope was being honest when he said he was misunderstood and misquoted, meanwhile your fellow Muslims have firebombed two churches (not even Catholic), rioted all over the world and stabbed a German priest. Is there no such thing as self scrutiny for Muslims? Or does that come only second to correcting the percieved "ignorance" of other people? Where is the vast Muslim apology for the fire bombings riots and attacks on Catholics?

Wait that is not part of Islam right - I am just ignorant and "dont understand" I need some "perspective," and yet you take on face value that the Pope just randomly decided to deride Islam for the sake of it? Did anybody read the speech itself? I quoted it... it wasnt even about Islam AND the Holy Father went out of his way to note that Mohammed advocated peace at a time he was under the threat of destruction from all sides - no you dont quote that part in your self righteous diatribes about the ignorant Pope and his evil Catholics all controlled by Bush, you zero in on a quote between a 700 year dead emperor and a persian whos name we dont even know quoted to illustrate a point in a speech between the leader of a religion and his followers - not even directed or about you.

And you have the nerve to say you are insulted? The Pope is misquoted, Churches firebombed, effigies burned, priests assaulted, rioting and Im the one who is supposed to have some perspective.

[Jayda]

And doodlebug your comments are just insulting. Castration has nothing to do with Catholicism, I respect you made your own decision - don't insult my religion just to prove your merits to your new sisters and brothers in faith.

Im livid, im done, ive got nothing more to say here, goodbye.

[Keltoi]

Very well put Jayda. Angry...but very well put. Reps.

[Ghazi]

:sl:

Where is the vast Muslim apology for the fire bombings riots and attacks on Catholics?

Apology what for this forum aint responsable and it's not from my religion so I won't apologies for something I had no part of.

[جوري]

Jayda it is all over the news... why do you take offense when someone gets upset with the "pope" but no offense when he insults a messanger from God and religion... why is it OK? I don't think any group in the world would stand for as much abuse as Muslims are getting right now from all angels.... my sister's colleague went to get his 8 months pregnant wife from the Airport only to wait for her for 10 hours as they detained her for interrogation in her condition... I hope with your current situation you can understand what that must be like?... my dad's friend and his wife had to open a baby's diaper to officials in the airport to prove that they didn't strap a bomb to their child... these people treat Muslims like animals if not worst... is that justifiable in your eyes? be fair really? if people push and push and push the other side will push back at some point......... your "holy" father isn't holy to us anymore than Islam is sacred to him.... and by the way he as the news broke today "stopped short of an apology"

[`Abd al-Azeez]

:sl:

The accusations made by the pope can be easily flipped up-side-down on Christianity, specifically Catholicism.

Jayda, how can you say he wasn't reffering to Islam? He even asked Turkey to leave the EU! here's the full quote:

In the seventh conversation (*4V8,>4H - controversy) edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion". According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur'an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached". The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably (F×< 8`(T) 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...".

He's using the quote from the emporer as a guise to attack Islam IMO.

:w:

[Keltoi]

I hope nobody takes this the wrong way, but am I the only one who sees the irony in people being angered by the supposed quote of "Islam is violent" and resort to violence to make their point that Islam isn't violent? I know the response will be "Those people don't represent Islam", but the problem is that they are "respresenting" Islam. Just like some people will read the headline of some article that states "Pope calls Islam violent" and believe the Pope hates Islam, others will see Muslims being violent as a reaction to the Pope article and assume that Muslims are indeed violent. This is the problem with sensationalized media stories.

[Ghazi]

:sl:

respresenting" Islam.

They are representing them selfs I say get to know someone before you condem them.

[InToTheRain]

What did the Pope say that was ignorant? He is not an ignorant man, not being Muslim is not synonymous with being ignorant. He quoted a conversation from the 14th century to say something about religion without reason... his speech wasnt about Islam. The only reason he chose the quote is because of the present political climate of extremism... in fact in his speech he even goes out of his way to say that Mohammed said that Muslims cannot force people to convert, at a time that Mohammed was weakest and under attack... ultimately that was his point, violence does not please God so it should not be done in the name of God.

If I was to say what Jesus(AS) taught or bought to humanty is nothing but evil and Inhuman wouldn't you say I know nothing about your religion? Infact wouldn't I say such things out of ignorance/lack of knowledge regarding your religion? What good did this pope hope to achieve by slandering the prophet of another religion? Are you saying its OK to slander another religion "nonchalantly" in order to make a point in a broader perspective? Fact is he chose to an Anti-Islamic quote when addressing millions and knowing what he says will strongly influence those listening to him.

The media headlines all say "Pope calls Islam violent" and the Muslim world erupted into riots and vandalism but how many have actually read the speech? I posted it earlier and only Muezzin responded...

Lets not generalise the actions of a few as the actions of the "Muslim world". Riots are I understand but vandalism/violence = NO!

By the way although I didn'ts see your post I was looking at this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/5348456.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/5349808.stm

Peace

[Woodrow]

Well there are strict regulations to what is permissable in jihad and when it is permisable. Even the destruction of proporty isn't alowed. Muslims have been instructed by the Prophet not to pillage or plunder or destroy residential areas, nor harm the property of anyone not fighting. It has been narrated in the Hadith: "The Prophet has prohibited the Believers from loot and plunder" (Bukhari, Abu Dawood) So much for teh riots.
there's a lot more rules where that one came from, here's the major lines:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_war_in_Islam



I see where your coming from, but what Woodrow meant; or at least what I think he meant, I can't speak in his place obviously. Is that these guys don't act out of obediance to Allah since they violate his rules. No they act out of vanity and self love. They don't have the power to swallow their vanity when someone else says they are wrong, and feel teh need to act upon it. Retaliation is never a defensive action.

That is correct. That is what I was trying to say.

[doodlebug]

And doodlebug your comments are just insulting. Castration has nothing to do with Catholicism,

Many Catholic choirboys back in the day would beg to differ. If you think that that is insulting than perhaps you understand how Muslims feel.

I respect you made your own decision - don't insult my religion just to prove your merits to your new sisters and brothers in faith.

I don't have to "prove" anything to anyone but Allah. My point in posting that was that people who live in glass houses should NOT throw stones.

You think that the "holy father" is very smart...well apparently he needs a few lessons in Political Correctness. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to know that quoting what he quoted would incite riots throughout the muslim community.

[rubiesand]

the Holy Father went out of his way to note that Mohammed advocated peace at a time he was under the threat of destruction from all sides

See, here is a big part of the problem right here. The Pope has made an obviously and easily verifiable statement of untruth. The ayah 'There is no compulsion in religion' is not from the early Makkan period when Islam was under threat of destruction, in fact it is from the later Medinan period when Islam was strong and flourishing in Medina.

So my question is - did the Pope lie deliberately in attempt to mislead people about Islam? In his 'apology' he certainly has not corrected his erroneous statement. Can it really be possible that he doesn't know that what he said is untrue? Why wouldn't he be sure of his facts before saying something about Islam with such certainty? How many people out there simply bought his statment and will never know they have been lied to?

[Panatella]

It is interesting that the comments by the pope were quotes from someone centuries ago in reference to violence insighted by mohommud. The anger and denial expressed in response by some, came in the form of fire bombs and attacks by gunmen.
How is it rational to deny violence by responding violently?
The pope spoke out about violence, and has apologized more than he should, just to keep the peace. Yet that is not enough for some. For those that it is not enough for, I say, " Why is it a problem for you to begin with?" Why is it a problem for someone to speak out against violence?
More importantly, why deny violence with violence?
Yeah, that really fools us.

[Rou]

"seems you have a problem with muslims getting angry with people who write or say things about there religon??"

Not at all. Getting angry is fine, protesting is fine, letters to the editor, economic boycotts, burning in effigy... all fine. Killing people is not fine, not simply because they said or wrote something offensive. Never ever ever is it ok to do that.

It's called free speech.
"we dont all live by your rules"
That's just my point.

your going round in circles...

:?

[north_malaysian]

From what I've seen, the media in the Muslim world keep repeating visual of Pope saying those harsh words towards our beloved Prophet.

But, it should be known that he just quoted a statement made by someone who was an ignorant of Islam and Prophet Muhammad. It's not his OWN statement.

Whatsoever, the pope had said SORRY to all of us.. What more we Muslims want?

We want him to do like this to be satisfied? :-

[Rou]

What did the Pope say that was ignorant? He is not an ignorant man, not being Muslim is not synonymous with being ignorant. He quoted a conversation from the 14th century to say something about religion without reason... his speech wasnt about Islam. The only reason he chose the quote is because of the present political climate of extremism... in fact in his speech he even goes out of his way to say that Mohammed said that Muslims cannot force people to convert, at a time that Mohammed was weakest and under attack... ultimately that was his point, violence does not please God so it should not be done in the name of God.

The media headlines all say "Pope calls Islam violent" and the Muslim world erupted into riots and vandalism but how many have actually read the speech? I posted it earlier and only Muezzin responded...

i have read the speech and the part that is stated that muhammed was weak at the time is not linked to the byzentines statment but at the surah from the quran the speech goes on to say that the byzentine stated that

"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."

now after stating this he did not proceed to say how incorrect the byzentine was or how this was totally the opposite of what islam stands for no he went on with his speech to other statments such as violence and god do not go together...

looking at his postion in the world and the seriousness of his words you would think that quote was not the best idea at this time and place..

you say that oh muhammed pbuh was weak at the time whats that got to do with the statment whatsoever?? obviously you know nothing of islam.. what in the time muhammed pbuh was weak and not so much in control he spread islam via the sword is that what your stating the pope meant?? beacuse that in its self is a blatent lie...


Popes speech -

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. (stating that both views are true)

It was presumably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than those of his Persian interlocutor. The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Qur'an, and deals especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship between - as they were called - three "Laws" or "rules of life": the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Qur'an. It is not my intention to discuss this question in the present lecture; here I would like to discuss only one point - itself rather marginal to the dialogue as a whole - which, in the context of the issue of "faith and reason", I found interesting and which can serve as the starting-point for my reflections on this issue.

In the seventh conversation (*4V8,>4H - controversy) edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion". According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. (no relation to the coming comment below) But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur'an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached". The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably (F×< 8`(T) 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...".

The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality. Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practise idolatry.


there is the speech now what i keep hearing is that the pope said! "when muhammed was weak!"

now what are you trying to state by this? that the pope is saying when muhammed pbuh was weak did he only spread it by the sword or that his acts were evil???

for that is untrue aswell...for islam teaches peace and only defence when attacked..and never teaches to spread by force that is the opposite of what is taught and a pure lie.

within the speech there seems no real reason for that quote to be brought up and to someone whos words mean so much around the world there should be quite a strong reason to mention such a quote and second it should have been explained clearly.

[Rou]

I dont think this is funny... all day ive been terrified to say anything in this thread at all while people have posted a steady stream of insults and ignorance toward the Holy Father and toward Catholicism. In the other thread somebody is saying that Catholics are now part of some vast global conspiracy against Islam all orchestrated by President Bush. Nobody has even for a minute considered that the Pope was being honest when he said he was misunderstood and misquoted, meanwhile your fellow Muslims have firebombed two churches (not even Catholic), rioted all over the world and stabbed a German priest. Is there no such thing as self scrutiny for Muslims? Or does that come only second to correcting the percieved "ignorance" of other people? Where is the vast Muslim apology for the fire bombings riots and attacks on Catholics?

Wait that is not part of Islam right - I am just ignorant and "dont understand" I need some "perspective," and yet you take on face value that the Pope just randomly decided to deride Islam for the sake of it? Did anybody read the speech itself? I quoted it... it wasnt even about Islam AND the Holy Father went out of his way to note that Mohammed advocated peace at a time he was under the threat of destruction from all sides - no you dont quote that part in your self righteous diatribes about the ignorant Pope and his evil Catholics all controlled by Bush, you zero in on a quote between a 700 year dead emperor and a persian whos name we dont even know quoted to illustrate a point in a speech between the leader of a religion and his followers - not even directed or about you.

And you have the nerve to say you are insulted? The Pope is misquoted, Churches firebombed, effigies burned, priests assaulted, rioting and Im the one who is supposed to have some perspective.

my gosh....:heated:

listen if i wanted i can say a whole army of christians killed a bunch of my people in iraq...but i dont and many muslims dont we say america used false pretense to enter and take over iraq and afgan...

why bring religon?

two churches got attacked...

do you have any idea how many muslims there are in this world???

work it out millions of muslims and two churches get burnt!?

what does that tell you??

it means the idiots who burnt them that were not even 1% of muslims!!

on the other hand read the speech and work it out what was the reason behind the statment? you state it was not about us??? whos prophet was mentioned??

[~Stranger~]

:sl:

we always say the media take things out of context- guess what? it happened again....
and we repeat it again, (for all the non muslims out there) burning churches is against islam. u should know that anger controlling is highly rewarded in islam and i bet the so called muslims who burnt the churches dont know about...

he apologized so let go of it. we'll just bring more attention to our own "brothers" mistakes

It's called free speech.

and theres something called respect for other religions. and at least when u r going to insult someone, at least say the truth and dont make a shame of urself (and i mean the danish cartoons). u know absolutly nothing about islam. its more than what u hear here (some ppl think they know everything about islam just coz they can the shahadah)

somebody plz close this pointless thread!

:w:

[Muezzin]

"And the logic that because some on this forum say one thing, they must be reflecting what Islam teaches, is severely flawed so don't use it."

I'm not concerned with what Islam teaches. I'm concerned with how it's self proclaimed adherents think and behave. Whether you consider them "real" Muslims or not is inconsequential.

Fine.

Your link to the Buddist free for all is not at all analogous. They were not threatening violence to the members of another religion because of some percieved VERBAL offence.

These nutters who happen to be of the Sikh religion did though.

And before anyone misunderstands, I have nothing against Sikhs, I like Sikhs - I'm saying everyone has their share of violent nutcases who shame their religion for whatever reason. Like the guys above, who are just crazies, not indicative of Sikhism as a whole.

My point is not that members of other religions are not violent. My point is that no adherents to any other modern religion are as quick to react with violence and even deadly violence to mere VERBAL or WRITTEN or DRAWN insults.

Because of the above link, that statement is now false and I'd appreciate it if you retracted it. I'm not justifying violence because of a verbal/written/drawn insult. It's wrong and it hurts people and it hurts the religion that the rioters try to protect, and the culprits should be punished as the law provides and as the common criminals they are. However, it is incorrect to say that only Muslims have reacted this way in recent times.

[Muezzin]

There will be an apology for this or we will begin destroying mosques and blowing ourselves up in mecca. How dare you say this? We take this very seriously!................(Obviously sarcasm).

Kind of ironic that you are doing what you accuse others of doing.

The greatest irony is when someone says 'you're violent!' and instead of reacting in a peaceful manner to allay his accusation, you start burning things and screaming 'I AM NOT VIOLENT!'

We need to educate Muslims in order to avoid anymore situations like this in the future. In this case, the Pope's words were taken out of context and thus the reaction of certain Muslims was unwaranted in the first place.

[ACC]

The greatest irony is when someone says 'you're violent!' and instead of reacting in a peaceful manner to allay his accusation, you start burning things and screaming 'I AM NOT VIOLENT!'

We need to educate Muslims in order to avoid anymore situations like this in the future. In this case, the Pope's words were taken out of context and thus the reaction of certain Muslims was unwaranted in the first place.

Agreed. But as someone said earlier, the violent people are in a sense reprsenting islam because others will view it this way.

[Ubaidah]

Regretfully I haven't stayed up to date with this topic on this forum, but I just want to throw out a general comment.

I was baptised Catholic, recieved communion in a Catholic church and was raised in with a Catholic belief system (albeit a leniant one). And this event is a perfect example of what turned me off to the Catholic Church, and to a lesser extent Christianity. It's the constant negativity from the Catholic Church that led me to explore other avenues for spiritual guidence and what ultimitely led to to Islam (which I am thankful for in that respect). This Pope is burning so many bridges that JPII worked very hard to build up, and the WORST part to me at least is that A) he even MADE such ignorant remarks, and B) that doesn't even have the conviction in his statements to stand by them. The Church has tried to spin it into a "That's not what he meant" kind of thing, which angers me even more.

Sorry if this post doesn't keep with the path this topic has taken, but I just had to get that off my chest.

[Panatella]

they dont represent us so i dont see why we should have to answer!???

the pope is a main figure one of the most important perhaps he should have thought before stating quotes without explaining them to be false...

Read the text of the entire speech. An intelligent person can see that his use of the quote was to make a greater point. The focus on the quote distorts the meaning, taking it out of context. There will always be troublemakers waiting to pounce on his words, looking to stir the pot.
Clearly, those that reacted violently are without reason, savages prone to violent behavior. Clearly, they did not read or hear the speech themselves, for if they had, and if they had the ability to reason, they would have seen no reason to react violently.

"I hope that this serves to appease hearts and to clarify the true meaning of my address, which in its totality was and is an invitation to frank and sincere dialogue, with great mutual respect," Benedict said.

In order to have frank dialogue, one must behave rationally without flying into fits of rage.

On Saturday, Palestinian Muslims firebombed two churches and shot at five others in the West Bank and Gaza Strip to protest against the Pope's comments, sparking concerns of a rift between Palestinian Muslims and Christians.

These idiots don't seem to get that they are only proving the words of the quoted emperor as right.

Gunmen shot and killed an Italian nun at a children's hospital in Somalia's capital on Sunday.

How does shooting a seventy-year-old nun in the back prove one's point that they are not violent? These idiots are uncivilized savages.

[Ubaidah]

I agree. The "retaliation" by those who commited these violent acts is appauling.

[S_87]

:sl:

Mufti of Saudi Arabia Rebuts Pope's statements

I agree. The "retaliation" by those who commited these violent acts is appauling.

when a raging fire erupts, you may not like it, it may hurt your eyes clog your throat etc etc. but do you blame it on the fire that was a few flames or the petrol that was thrown on it?
i as a muslim hope hope fellow muslims do not act violently too..

[Panatella]

If it were me in the pope's situation, I would apologize for nothing. Why should he apologize for others not taking his speech in it's entire context? Why should he apologize to those that are too lazy to read the entire speech before acting? Why should he apologize to those that are offended if you happen to look at them the wrong way, or don't say thing's just the way they want?
I say to those that don't like it, go in the corner and sit on your pouting pail.

[therebbe]

If it were me in the pope's situation, I would apologize for nothing. Why should he apologize for others not taking his speech in it's entire context? Why should he apologize to those that are too lazy to read the entire speech before acting? Why should he apologize to those that are offended if you happen to look at them the wrong way, or don't say thing's just the way they want?
I say to those that don't like it, go in the corner and sit on your pouting pail.

Nice. Good points made.

[doodlebug]

If it were me in the pope's situation, I would apologize for nothing. Why should he apologize for others not taking his speech in it's entire context? Why should he apologize to those that are too lazy to read the entire speech before acting? Why should he apologize to those that are offended if you happen to look at them the wrong way, or don't say thing's just the way they want?
I say to those that don't like it, go in the corner and sit on your pouting pail.

I think you are diminimizing the fact that 1) he is a leader of many many people and 2) as a leader he is respected and held to a much higher standard than many many people. Because of his stature people make the assumption that he is intelligent. I certainly would vouch for his intelligence and because of that I question his motives of using this quote as an example of not choosing ones own religion by way of reason instead of force. He is part-politician, maybe not by choice but by virtue of his predecessor, and he should know how very serious this statement would be. He's not an idiot, in other words,...he knows how volitile the situation is between the Muslims and the rest of the world and he knows what Muslims have to overcome each and everyday by way of profiling. Stating this particular quote was either a stupid mistake or a very malicious act.

And as to the apology..I haven't read it but what the news is saying is that he is sorry for the "reaction" that his speech made and that the quote used does not reflect his own feelings.

Sorry for the reaction means he is sorry that Muslims have committed bad acts and are upset over it. It does NOT mean he is sorry for using the quote. It would be like me saying to you, "gee you're so ugly!!". Then you get mad and yell at me and I say "i'm sorry for your reaction". Does that mean to you that I am sorry that I said it? Personally it doesn't fly with me.

Saying that the quote does not represent his feelings does not mean that he doesn't think even worse things. It just means that he does not feel that the quote was right. For all we know he could feel even more bad things than what the quote represented.

Again..he is a VERY intelligent man.

[Ubaidah]

:sl:

Mufti of Saudi Arabia Rebuts Pope's statements




when a raging fire erupts, you may not like it, it may hurt your eyes clog your throat etc etc. but do you blame it on the fire that was a few flames or the petrol that was thrown on it?
i as a muslim hope hope fellow muslims do not act violently too..

Oh I do not blame ANY Muslim, or any human being that cannot stand ignorance for being angry. But violence against the innocent is deplorable, period.

[Keltoi]

This whole thing is silly. The Catholic Church has no power over international politics or policy. The pontiff is a figurehead, an important one, but still only a figurehead. You can disagree with the pontiff, for whatever reason, but what came out of this, which is the murder of a nun in Somalia(who was shot in the back by the way), burning of churches, etc, is far more disgusting than anything that could have came out of the Pope's mouth.

[Keltoi]

Can we perhaps agree that what came out of this, one of which was the shooting of a nun in the back, is far more disgusting than anything that the Pope supposedly said? Because if we can't agree on that, then there isn't much to agree on at all.

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

Its is disgusting...really sad to hear, honestly =\ I was shocked hearin it. But I dont trust the words that come out of people, regardless of who they are. Humans are known for being liars. But its still sad.

[doodlebug]

Can we perhaps agree that what came out of this, one of which was the shooting of a nun in the back, is far more disgusting than anything that the Pope supposedly said? Because if we can't agree on that, then there isn't much to agree on at all.

Obviously that act was just dispicible and heinous.

What's worse though is that because of the Pope's stature, what he said will incite much more of these.

[Keltoi]

Obviously that act was just dispicible and heinous.

What's worse though is that because of the Pope's stature, what he said will incite much more of these.

The Pope didn't tell anybody to kill anyone. Those that use this as an excuse to kill and burn down churches can't blame anyone but themselves. If any criticism of Islam is going to be answered with murder and carnage, what does that say about Islam? Most would say these people that kill, burn down places of worship, and riot, aren't representing Muslims. Yet you also blame the Pope's supposed comments about Islam for the violence. Is the violence caused by the Pope or by those who burn and kill? I'm not trying to offend anyone or suggest anything bad about Islam, but you can't denounce an act of violence by putting the blame on someone else. Either follow the word of God, which is peace, or don't. That is a personal decision.

[doodlebug]

The Pope didn't tell anybody to kill anyone. Those that use this as an excuse to kill and burn down churches can't blame anyone but themselves. If any criticism of Islam is going to be answered with murder and carnage, what does that say about Islam? Most would say these people that kill, burn down places of worship, and riot, aren't representing Muslims. Yet you also blame the Pope's supposed comments about Islam for the violence. Is the violence caused by the Pope or by those who burn and kill? I'm not trying to offend anyone or suggest anything bad about Islam, but you can't denounce an act of violence by putting the blame on someone else. Either follow the word of God, which is peace, or don't. That is a personal decision.

If the President of the United States were to make a statement that all Muslims are terrorists, would you put no blame on him for the obvious aftermath that would occur? I know the quote from the Pope wasn't that extreme but do you get my point?

I don't blame the Pope 100% for the murder of the nun and the burning of the churches but c'mon....they guy HAD to have known that these things would occur after what he said. Shoot I"m an idiot and even I would know that. He's the Pope for goodness sakes!

[Keltoi]

If the President of the United States were to make a statement that all Muslims are terrorists, would you put no blame on him for the obvious aftermath that would occur? I know the quote from the Pope wasn't that extreme but do you get my point?

I don't blame the Pope 100% for the murder of the nun and the burning of the churches but c'mon....they guy HAD to have known that these things would occur after what he said. Shoot I"m an idiot and even I would know that. He's the Pope for goodness sakes!

Why should he have known? If Christians rioted and killed after some Muslim cleric preached something that offended Christians, you would blame the cleric I assume? C'mon, this is twisted and I would call it childish if the results weren't so disgusting.

[doodlebug]

Why should he have known? If Christians rioted and killed after some Muslim cleric preached something that offended Christians, you would blame the cleric I assume? C'mon, this is twisted and I would call it childish if the results weren't so disgusting.

He should have known 'cause it's just plain good ole common sense given a look at the history in the past few years. Riots have occurred over cartoons of the Prophet, pbuh....to not think that they would occur over such a harsh statement by such a HUGE religious leader is just silly and nonsensicle.

[Ubaidah]

Which one is worse? I get the attacks on the nun simply because they ended with deaths on innocent people, but I hate trying to distinguish between two wrongs as being "the lesser of two evils". The Pope is not free of fault however.

[Muhammad]

Greetings,

Firstly, I have merged two threads in here because I felt the later one(started in Comparative Religion section) overlapped the original one and may have led to two threads discussing the same thing. Please bear in mind that conspiracy theories are not allowed.

Nobody has even for a minute considered that the Pope was being honest when he said he was misunderstood and misquoted,

I don't think this true. There have been a number of concerns in this thread about the true intent behind the words and even requests for the transcript. To say nobody at all considered the possibility sounds inaccurate.

meanwhile your fellow Muslims have firebombed two churches (not even Catholic), rioted all over the world and stabbed a German priest. Is there no such thing as self scrutiny for Muslims? Or does that come only second to correcting the percieved "ignorance" of other people? Where is the vast Muslim apology for the fire bombings riots and attacks on Catholics?

This issue has been condemned by almost every single Muslim in this thread; we all agree that violence is not the answer. It is saddening to see such behaviour and the losses endured by innocent people, so please rest assured that we are against this as much as you.

Read the text of the entire speech. An intelligent person can see that his use of the quote was to make a greater point. The focus on the quote distorts the meaning, taking it out of context. There will always be troublemakers waiting to pounce on his words, looking to stir the pot.

I agree that one should read the entire speech and try to understand the quote in its context. However, in trying to do this, I was disturbed by a few things. I have highlighted below where I think people may have taken offence at the speech. No offence is intended at our fellow Christian members :).

First of all, it was mentioned that the speech was intended as "an invitation to frank and sincere dialogue, with great mutual respect". If such was the case, it would have been quite helpful if not appropriate for the pope to state clearly that while he was using a quote from a Byzantine emperor who did not understand Islam - containing words of attack against the religion - that this misconception was not upheld by people of the Christian faith, or at least himself in this current context. Instead, a quote that is untrue in itself is used to make a valid point about the Christian faith. There is no emphatic clarification of a stance on the issue nor concern for the connotations it holds, and thus the reader is left to assume his own conclusion from such words. I believe that the point in question is - correct me if I am wrong - that spreading faith through violence is unreasonable, and to act unreasonably is contrary to God's nature; but ignores the fact that this lesson is learnt from a false illustration, and perhaps many others could have replaced this picture: others that would not seemingly play with fire or pull the strings of dramatic irony, for how many a person "spread faith through violence" and his religion was not Islam?

If the first point can be summarised as being lack of clarification, the second can be that of ignorance. It is mentioned that the verse regarding no compulsion in the Islamic religion is from a surah of the "early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat". One might question the relevance of this detail before correcting its gross inaccuracy: was it intended to mean that the lack of compulsion was specific to a time of weakness? We cannot arrive at any decisive answer by such conjecture. The verse, in actual fact, is from the longest surah in the Qur'an and hence one from the later period, during which the spread of Islam was no longer under threat; hence we appreciate the length and content of the surah dealing with more detailed issues of Islam. It's rather worrying that the misinformation with regards to this subject is according to "the experts", as mentioned in the speech.

There is a slight problem in semantics when Jihad is referred to as "holy war". This has been addressed in a number of articles, such as: http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/S...AskAboutIslamE where it states that, "Since this verse (4:135) shows that God accepts only justice, fighting in the name of God is fighting in the name of justice. But, contrary to many people's interpretation, jihad is anything but a "holy" war. In the light and essence of Islam and the Qur'an, there is no war that is holy; under any circumstances whatsoever. In fact, the whole text of the Qur'an and the religion of Islam revolve around the concept of peace, not war".

Up till now, we have assumed that the pope is not trying to teach his audience about Islam, but, as originally stated, is simply making a greater point. Why then is it mentioned through the observation of Theodore Khoury, "but for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality"? Presumably - and a Christian may correct me if I have this wrong - the same point is being made: that not acting with 'Logos' (i.e. reason) is contrary to God's nature. Again, Christian views appear to be expressed at the expense of Islamic misrepresentation. The work of a "noted French Islamist" is quoted to support the Islamic notion, as opposed to a valid Islamic authority who might be in a better position to explain it. Ibn Hazn is described as having said, "God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us", but when we look to what God Himself revealed in the Qur'an, we find verses that eradicate any doubt as to whether God, the Most Perfect as He is, would reveal anything other than the truth or would be unjust to His creation in any way:

38:84 (Allâh) said: "The Truth is, and the Truth I say,

10:32 Such is Allâh, your Lord in truth. So after the truth, what else can there be, save error? How then are you turned away?

21:18 Nay, We fling (send down) the truth (this Qur'ân) against the falsehood (disbelief), so it destroys it, and behold, it (falsehood) is vanished. And woe to you for that (lie) which you ascribe (to Us) (against Allâh by uttering that Allâh has a wife and a son).


24:25 On that Day Allâh will pay them the recompense of their deeds in full, and they will know that Allâh, He is the Manifest Truth.

3:9 Our Lord! Verily, it is You Who will gather mankind together on the Day about which there is no doubt. Verily, Allâh never breaks His Promise".

4:122 But those who believe (in the Oneness of Allâh - Islâmic Monotheism) and do deeds of righteousness, We shall admit them to the Gardens under which rivers flow (i.e. in Paradise) to dwell therein forever. Allâh's Promise is the Truth, and whose words can be truer than those of Allâh? (Of course, none).

14:47 So think not that Allâh will fail to keep His Promise to His Messengers. Certainly, Allâh is All-Mighty, - All-Able of Retribution.

25:16 For them there will be therein all that they desire, and they will abide (there forever). It is a promise binding upon your Lord that must be fulfilled.

4:40 Surely! Allâh wrongs not even of the weight of an atom (or a small ant) , but if there is any good (done), He doubles it, and gives from Him a great reward.
3:108 These are the Verses of Allâh: We recite them to you (O Muhammad

) in truth, and Allâh wills no injustice to the 'Alâmîn (mankind and jinns).

39:69 And the earth will shine with the light of its Lord (Allâh, when He will come to judge among men) and the Book will be placed (open) and the Prophets and the witnesses will be brought forward, and it will be judged between them with truth, and they will not be wronged.

So numerous are the verses conveying these messages, that one might go as far as to say it is inconceivable that a person who has read the Qur'an could make such a mistake as to doubt God's utmost justice.

To conclude, I think that if one decides to journey through a religion in order to make any point, it is only fair that they portray that transient image in an accurate and acceptable form, especially when interfaith respect and dialogue is so widley sought after in today's world.

According to Muslims of course.

The 4.5 Billion in the world believe him to be a fake or have no relevance to their lives. Just to clarify this.

Sorry to finish on an off-topic note, but please refer to:
http://www.islamicboard.com/prophet-...uhammad-s.html
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...ds-quotes.html

Peace.

[Joe98]

The pope quoted somebody from history.

That somebody said islam was spread by the sword. "But" the pope said "religion and violence are not compatible."

The pope is a scholar and thinks like scholar.

-

[Curaezipirid]

Assalamalaikum

The Pope really should have a clean cupboard of Catholic worth before he opened his mouth.

Among all organised crime here in Australia it is very common knowledge that the corruption by which nazism sought to thwart all Christian practise, and still today seeks to corrupt children, is that which supplies the coffers in Rome. Now since I am no criminal, I can not provide of any verification of these facts. Nor even can criminals without their lives being put at risk. But certainly the bikie gangs get about swaggering that they are supported in nazi method by the Pope.

Now when I also, as many now know in Australia, that a child who Prays in a Catholic church in true Faith in Jesus, and whom is identified as an Indigenous Australian; is robbed by shaytan on behalf of the Pope, and caused to experience being treated externally as though guilty of crimes against children; I must ask, who would not rise to Jihad?

Holy war is neither a new thing with the advent of Islam. The Jews were often assisted by God to defeat their enemies. Yet in Jesus, it is the function that the Pope should role model, to only accept what is, and not become a combatant.

wasalam

[Ubaidah]

Once again I've been thinking about this, and allow me to play "devils advocate" (for lack of a better word) for a moment, as well as try to make a point of my own:

Why should the Pope have apologized? People blaspheme against Jesus, and his Catholic church every single day on cartoons, news, etc. and Catholics don't demand an apology or resort to violence. <--- That is how non-muslims are thinking, I guarantee it. Again, I understand and empathize with the muslim community for being upset for the simple fact that the comments were of poor taste. But here is how EVERY average non-muslim sees these events:

Pope: "Mohammed preached to spread the word through violence."
The common idea of what Muslims are: "No he didn't....WE'LL KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE FOR SAYING THAT!"

And the stereotype of Muslims & Islam as being rooted in violence just continues to appear as a truth. So once again, the Pope was in the wrong. But justifying or even TRYING to justify his comments as being just as bad or even worse as the killing of the innocent isn't possible. They are on POLAR opposites of the spectrum.

[Sis786]

Assalaam Alykum,

I think that people have taken this too far. The Media have piped this up again and said lets see how far we can push the Muslims and us Muslims have followed this lead and began behaving in an unislamic way again.

I think the best response would have been is to get togther and have written to the pope asking him top expain himself. The reaction we have taken is just another proof that we listen to the Media and rea act in the worse possible way without any proof.

At the end of the day the pope has apologised and that should end the crisis!

[AvarAllahNoor]

Assalaam Alykum,

I think that people have taken this too far. The Media have piped this up again and said lets see how far we can push the Muslims and us Muslims have followed this lead and began behaving in an unislamic way again.

I think the best response would have been is to get togther and have written to the pope asking him top expain himself. The reaction we have taken is just another proof that we listen to the Media and rea act in the worse possible way without any proof.

At the end of the day the pope has apologised and that should end the crisis!

I know they say they will 'Burn crosses in Rome' and Kill hte pope this is not what Islam needs. It's such a negative response.

[Sakeena]

Assalamu alaikum

Here is an article from Dr Saleh as-Saleh, which is precise and staright to the point, alhumdulilah
http://www.understand-islam.net/Arti...etothePope.pdf


In the Name of Allaah, the Beneficent, the Most Merciful

A Concise Response to the Pope

The Pope Denies the Pope?

First Point: The Pope Believes and Preaches the Bible.

Second Point: In the Bible there are commands to Kill,
Destroy, Sending People to Hell, etc.

Third Point: Is this absolute "Violence and Inhumane?" Or
could there be Justified Commands Fit to befall those who
deserved to receive the Wrath of God?

Fourth Point: This Proves that either the Pope does not believe
in His Bible, or…..!!!!

Finally: How does this match with the 'Science and Faith"
Scholastic Lecture of the Pope?
Written by
Saleh As-Saleh



Wa-salaam

[Muhammad]

Greetings,

The pope quoted somebody from history.

That somebody said islam was spread by the sword. "But" the pope said "religion and violence are not compatible."

The pope is a scholar and thinks like scholar.

-

It might have been more complete to finish that point by stating how wrong this somebody from history therefore was, so as not to accidentally imply that this is 'where Islam goes wrong, and where others should not follow'.

Why should the Pope have apologized? People blaspheme against Jesus, and his Catholic church every single day on cartoons, news, etc. and Catholics don't demand an apology or resort to violence. <--- That is how non-muslims are thinking, I guarantee it.

This goes back to the discussion on the Danish cartoons, where the same question was put forward, although in the context of freedom of speech. It is a little different here, because the argument is not freedom of speech but more relating to responsibility and wisdom of religious scholars. So we could say that the pope should have known better and the matter was made all the more unacceptable by him being a figure of understanding, authority and respect.

The other issue is why are Muslims offended so much when people of other faiths endure defamation of sacred symbols aswell? One explanation that was given in the following thread seeks to contextualise the events and implores a deeper reflection:

The reaction you have witnessed is related to what these caricaturesreally signify. Muslims feel that there has been an on-going campaign undertaken by many elements within the western media to malign and demonize Islam. Islam and the Prophet Muhammad pbuh has been repeatedly attacked and at a time when we need to reach out and increase our understanding of different minority groups we find that instead misconceptions and slanderous comments are being propagated. When these cartoons were published, the Muslim community in Denmark and other western countries felt that the percieved attack on Islam had now become obvious. The cartoons represented a malicious attempt to malign Islam and incite more hatred towards the Muslim community. This is why the Muslims felt that they needed to voice loud protest and cause the world to realize that we cannot continue to propagate hatred towards others if we intend to promote peace.

http://www.islamicboard.com/world-af...-murder-3.html

We can also go on to say that while there is freedom of speech, it needs to be used responsibly; nobody should be insulting any religion in the first place. Furthermore, this is not exclusively suggested by Muslims, but limitations to free expression have always existed as discussed in earlier threads such as:

http://www.islamicboard.com/world-af...choudhury.html

Another plausible reason for a greater impact such slander has on the Muslim community is their reverence for their religion. Blasphemy might go down lightly with people who are not as religiously devout, but Muslims are deeply hurt when a person loved dearer than their own selves is insulted - and note that I say insulted, not simply disbelieved in.

And the stereotype of Muslims & Islam as being rooted in violence just continues to appear as a truth. So once again, the Pope was in the wrong. But justifying or even TRYING to justify his comments as being just as bad or even worse as the killing of the innocent isn't possible. They are on POLAR opposites of the spectrum.

In the same breath as attempting to explain the reaction of some Muslims, we also wholeheartedly agree that violent actions are only adding insult to injury. In the first thread quoted above, you will find lists of Muslim scholars condemning such actions in the case of the Danish caricatures, and likewise we reiterate our stance against a similar issue now.

Peace :).

[Kidman]

U.S. MUSLIMS CALL FOR DIALOGUE OVER POPE'S COMMENTS ON ISLAM
CAIR seeks meeting with Vatican representative in Washington, D.C.


(WASHINGTON, D.C., 9/15/2006) - The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) today called for increased dialogue between Muslims and Catholics over the controversy sparked by remarks perceived as insulting to Islam and the Prophet Muhammad made by Pope Benedict XVI. CAIR is also seeking a meeting with the Vatican's representative in Washington, D.C., to discuss the remarks.

In an address on Tuesday, the Pope quoted a 14th century Byzantine Christian Emperor as saying: "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."

SEE: Muslim Leaders Blast Pope's Comments (Washington Post)

In a statement issued today, the Washington-based Islamic civil rights and advocacy group said:

"The proper response to the Pope's inaccurate and divisive remarks is for Muslims and Catholics worldwide to increase dialogue and outreach efforts aimed at building better relations between Christianity and Islam. This unfortunate episode also offers an opportunity for Christians to learn more about Islam, the Prophet Muhammad and the Islamic concept of jihad.

"Jihad is a central and broad Islamic concept that includes struggle against evil inclinations within oneself, struggle to improve the quality of life in society, struggle in the battlefield for self-defense (e.g., - having a standing army for national defense), or fighting against tyranny or oppression. 'Jihad' should not be translated as 'holy war.'

"The Quran, Islam's revealed text, condemns forced acceptance of any faith when it states: 'Let there be no compulsion in religion.' (2:256) Islam calls for peace once oppression ends: 'Fight in the cause of God with those who fight against you, but do not exceed the limits...If they desist, let there be no hostility except against the oppressors." (2:190-193)

"Muslims are also asked to maintain good relations with people of other faiths, and to engage in constructive dialogue. 'And dispute not with the People of the Book (Christians and Jews) except with means better (than mere disputation). . .but say, 'We believe in the Revelation that has come down to us and in that which came down to you.'" (29:46)

"The Quran also states: '(Rest assured that) those who believe (in the Quran), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians, and the Sabians - whoever believes in God and the last day and performs good deeds - will be rewarded by their Lord. They will have nothing to fear or to regret.' (2:62)

"In Islam, there is no contradiction between faith and reason. The first verses revealed to the Prophet Muhammad included: 'Read! In the name of your Lord. . .Read! Your Lord is the Most Gracious, Who taught by the (use of the) pen, taught man what he knew not.' Historically, whenever Islam flourished, so did knowledge and discovery.

"Let us all continue the interfaith efforts promoted by the late Pope John Paul II, who made great strides in bringing Muslims and Catholics together for the common good."

Along with a request for a meeting with a Vatican representative in the United States, CAIR is urging Americans of all faiths to learn more about Islam and about the life and legacy of the Prophet Muhammad by requesting a free Quran or a book or DVD about Muhammad at www.explorethequran.org and www.cair.com/Muhammad.

CAIR has 32 offices and chapters nationwide and in Canada. Its mission is to enhance the understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding.


- END -


CONTACT: CAIR National Communications Director Ibrahim Hooper, 202-488-8787 or 202-744-7726, E-Mail: ihooper@cair-net.org

-----

CAIR
Council on American-Islamic Relations
453 New Jersey Avenue, S.E.
Washington, D.C. 20003
Tel: 202-488-8787, 202-744-7726
Fax: 202-488-0833
E-mail: info@cair.com
URL: http://www.cair.com

[Rou]

The pope quoted somebody from history.

That somebody said islam was spread by the sword. "But" the pope said "religion and violence are not compatible."

The pope is a scholar and thinks like scholar.

-

i keep hearing people say this look i have looked over the speech and it dont make sense?!

1.i see no real reason why he would add the quote. (anyone care to explain?)

2. he did not state it was an untrue view. (knowing however that his words matter)

3. he used it as analogy for violence in religon but thats exactly the point its a false analogy so why use it!? (again anyone care to explain?)

as for the violence no muslim says its correct heance why two churches attacked means the rest of the 4 billion muslims were at home in peace!

so get over it!!

protests will be everywhere as we dont take lightly to insults towards our religon what more do you want!?

now if any care to answer the views on the popes speech!?

[snakelegs]

the few muslims who react with violence to provokations such as this, are the true enemies of islam and do much more harm than any words out of the pope's mouth. just my 2 cents.

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

Yes they are. If they cared, they would be careful...
Ticks me off..

[wilberhum]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14888444/

Islamic militants vow war after pope comments

It looks like some are trying to make the quote that the Pope used accurate.

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

The Regensberg Speech of Pope Benedict XVI

| ISLAMTODAY.NET |

Muslims have been greatly offended by references made about Islam in a speech that Pope Benedict XVI delivered on September 12 at the University of Regensberg entitled "Faith, Reason and the University – Memories and Reflections" Muslims were insulted by the speech's misrepresentation of Islam as a religion that is spread through violence.

The Vatican defended the speech claiming that the Pope was merely quoting the words of Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus from a medieval text. In the Vatican's official statement of 16 September, it reads: "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."

In the Pope's subsequent apology, he apologizes for the reaction that Muslims had to his speech and affirms that the views of Emperor Manuel II do not reflect his own, saying: "At this time, I wish also to add that I am deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address at the University of Regensburg, which were considered offensive to the sensibility of Muslims. These in fact were a quotation from a medieval text, which do not in any way express my personal thought."

However, many Muslims do not consider this explanation and apology to be sufficient. For one thing, it only addresses the quotation form Emperor Manuel II, though the misrepresentations of Islam contained in the speech are not limited to that quote. Also, his apology is merely for the Muslim's reaction and not for any fault in the speech itself.

To understand this better, we need to look carefully at the key paragraphs of the speech – paragraphs three and four – and clarify what about them Muslims find offensive:

Here is paragraph three of that speech:

In the seventh conversation edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion". According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur'an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached". The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "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...".

As we can see, this paragraph is not merely a quotation of a passage from a medieval text. The quoted words of the Emperor form only a part of it, and much of what is offensive and inaccurate in this paragraph is not from that quotation, but from the words of Pope Benedict XVI himself.

The Pope introduces the quote by mentioning that the Emperor must have known the verse of the Qur'&#226;n that reads "There is no compulsion in religion." This is a claim being made by the Pope. He then goes on to assert on the basis of some "experts" that this verse was revealed in the early days when Islam was weak. He then goes on to say that the verses relating to "Holy War" came later.

These are the Pope's words. They are inaccurate and their implications are sinister. They are inaccurate because the verse "There is no compulsion in religion" was revealed to Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) in Madinah when Islam was at its most powerful. The Pope's words imply that the verse which declares there is no compulsion in religion was only for the early days of Islam and was replaced with more militant injunctions when Islam grew stronger. Again, this implication does not come from something quoted from Emperor, but from the words of the Pope.

Here, the Pope needs to clarify that Islam does not preach violence against non-Muslims and that Muslims do not advocate spreading Islam through violence, since this is the implication of his own words. Therefore, this is something that he has to either explain or retract, and it is something about which Muslims feel he should apologize.

After Pope Benedict XVI makes these observations about the verses of the Qur'&#226;n, only then does he begin quoting the words of the Byzantine Emperor, which include the statement: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached"

He makes no effort to distance himself from this statement or t show that he disagrees with it, which is something that a man of his position should have taken pains to do, especially after preceding this quote with the introduction that he gave.

It is good that the Pope has now made it clear that the words of the Byzantine Emperor do not reflect his own views. However, more is needed. He needs to apologize for his poor choice of words that lead listeners to believe that he supports the Emperor's idea that Islam advocates the spread of faith through violence. He also needs to clarify his preceding statements about the verses of the Qur'an – statements which are inaccurate and which imply the same negative meaning as the Emperor's.

We will now look at paragraph four:

The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality. Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practise idolatry.

We should note that in this paragraph the Pope does not quote the Byzantine Emperor at all. Here he quotes from the comments made by Theodore Khoury, the editor of the Emperor's writings, which are being cited as an analysis of those writings. The statement of Khoury that he quotes here seeks to explain the difference in attitude between the Emperor and the Muslims towards violence by saying that Muslims do not subject God to the dictates of reason.

At this point, it would have been necessary for the Pope to state his disagreement with Khoury's general statements about Islam. He needed to clarify that the views being expressed about Muslim beliefs by Khoury and those supposedly held by the "educated Persian" are not representative of the beliefs of the vast majority of Muslims. As it stands, paragraph four merely reinforces the idea that the Emperor's views about violence and those of the Muslims are in actuality opposing views.

The fact is, Muslims agree with the Emperor's words: "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"

This is the very idea enshrined in the Qur'&#226;n – in the verse that the Pope wrongfully dismisses – where Allah says: "There is no compulsion in religion. Truth stands out clear from error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold that never breaks. And Allah hears and knows all things." [S&#251;rah al-Baqarah: 256]

Therefore, a clearer apology is needed from the Pope where he at least admits to having chosen his words incorrectly, and where he makes it clear that he is not advancing the idea that Islam espouses irrational violence as a means of spreading the faith.

We as Muslims need to make clear exactly what grievances we have with the Pope's speech. We need to be precise in what we say and show where the Pope's speech was in error. In doing so, we need to take the opportunity to explain the true, peaceful teachings of Islam and to call people to Islam. We must restrain our anger. We must avoid all acts of violence and impropriety, conduct which only serve to advance the falsehood that Islam is a violent religion. We must also understand that though demonstrations and protests communicate to the world the anger that the Muslims feel, they do not explain to the world exactly what was wrong with the Pope's statements or why his apology is insufficient. What is needed is for us to speak calmly and convey a clear, well-reasoned message.

And Allah knows best.

For further reference:

Official English Translation of the Regensberg Lecture

Let There Be No Compulsion in Religion – Sheikh S&#226;m&#238; al-M&#226;jid

The Pope's Words - New Your Times editorial

[Muezzin]

The Pope apologised for his comments, and this thread really seems to have outlived its purpose, not least because of the numerous fights it has caused among members.

Thread closed.