format_quote 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.
Bookmarks