Pope Seen Criticizing Islam

**Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн** · 09-13-2006

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

**doodlebug** · 09-17-2006

Originally Posted by Jayda

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.

Originally Posted by Jayda

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** · 09-17-2006

Originally Posted by Jayda

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** · 09-17-2006

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** · 09-17-2006

Originally Posted by 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.

your going round in circles...

**north_malaysian** · 09-17-2006

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? :-

4g6upmt 2 - Pope Seen Criticizing Islam

**Rou** · 09-17-2006

Originally Posted by 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...

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** · 09-17-2006

Originally Posted by 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.

my gosh....

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~** · 09-17-2006

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!

**Muezzin** · 09-17-2006

Originally Posted by 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.

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** · 09-17-2006

Originally Posted by ACC

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** · 09-17-2006

Originally Posted by Muezzin

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** · 09-17-2006

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** · 09-17-2006

Originally Posted by Rou

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** · 09-17-2006

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

**S_87** · 09-17-2006

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** · 09-17-2006

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** · 09-17-2006

Originally Posted by 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.

Nice. Good points made.

**doodlebug** · 09-17-2006

Originally Posted by 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.

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** · 09-17-2006

Originally Posted by amani

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** · 09-17-2006

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.