Can the Pope be Reformed?

afnan

Junior Member
Can the Pope be Reformed?
by
khalid baig


When Pope Benedict XVI was installed last year, Jerusalem Post predicted a radical change in Vatican's relations with Islam: "The era of subtle, discreet, yet firm confrontation has begun." It noted with joy that in his greeting the new pope welcomed fellow Catholics, other Christians, and Jews --- but not Muslims.

There was nothing subtle or discreet in the Pope's calculated diatribes against Islam in his University address this month, but there were indications that these may have been opening salvos in the Pope's predicted crusade. He was fulfilling the expectations of Islamophobes of all persuasions. This includes Oriana Fallaci, an author with a venomous pen, who dedicated her life to slandering and vilifying Muslims. The Pope --- considered to be occupied with the issues of faith --- had no problem granting a secret audience to this self declared atheist. This was in August, a month before her death. It is difficult to imagine what brought her and the Pope together except their common hatred of Islam. The racist author, who said "Muslims multiplied like rats," was all praise for the new pope, who in her words was urging Europe to value their Christian (read: medieval) roots. Interesting that an atheist should be jubilant over Christian roots. Hatred, it seems, can produce hypocrisy.

We can gain further insight into the mindset of the new pope by listening to Father Joseph Fessio, a student and friend of Pope Benedict XVI, who gave an hour long interview on the Hugh Hewitt Show (January 2006) on the problems Christianity, especially in Europe, faced with the spread of Islam. Read this:

Hugh Hewitt: Great to have you. I wanted to talk to you today, because Mark Steyn, a tremendous writer, wrote a piece yesterday on the loss of the West, because of depopulation, and because of a lack of seriousness. And I believe that this has been a theme in your teacher, Benedict XVI's first nine months as Pope. Am I right about that?

Joseph Fessio: Absolutely right, Hugh.

The problems mentioned above are diminishing Western populations and their decreasing faith in Christianity. In contrast Muslims are both increasing in numbers as well as in their faith in Islam. Later in the interview Joseph Fessio makes it explicit: "[in] 2005, there were more Muslims born in France than people of traditional French background. Within four years, the top four cities in Holland will be...most populous cities, will have a Muslim majority. I mean, if we look at the demographics, which can change, but they change slowly, I don't see any other issue for Europe, or any result, than looking like North Africa, you know? Algeria, Morocco, Libya, Egypt."

So Muslims are a problem. But the bigger problem is their faith. Benedict XVI himself sees that as a major challenge. In his interview based book, Salt of the Earth: The Church at the End of the Millennium (1997), written when he was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, he notes that in the post colonial world (since 1960 in his words) Muslims have been coming back to Islam:

So the Muslims now have the consciousness that in reality Islam has remained in the end as the more vigorous religion and that they have something to say to the world, indeed, are the essential religious force of the future. Before, the shariah and all those things had already left the scene, in a sense; now there is a new pride. Thus a new zest, a new intensity about wanting to live Islam has awakened. This is its great power: We have a moral message that has existed without interruption since the prophets, and we will tell the world how to live it, whereas the Christians certainly can't. We must naturally come to terms with this inner power of Islam. [emphasis added]

Unfortunately, this inner strength of Islam leads to rage rather than reflection in the Islamophobic quarters. Hence the campaign to vilify Islam.

Apparently, the Pope's address was his way of coming to terms with the inner power of Islam.

It is interesting that Benedict XVI chose the issue of faith and reason for his attack on Islam. For unlike Christianity, Islamic faith contains no mysteries or perplexing constructs like Trinity or the dual nature of Jesus, peace be upon him (at once human and divine). Ask those who are coming back to Islam in the Western world and on the top of their list you will find the simplicity and reasonableness of Islamic teachings and doctrines. They find here a belief system that immediately resonates with their own intellect. That is why the Qur'an repeatedly urges its readers to think and reflect, and says that those who will face eternal doom in the Hereafter will be the ones who failed to use their intellect.

They will further say: 'Had we but listened or used our intelligence, we should not (now) be among the Companions of the Blazing Fire!' [Al-Mulk 67:10]

The Pope managed to use the issue of faith versus reason to attack Islam not by reading the Qur'an or listening to the Prophet, Sall-Allahu Alayhi wa sallam, but by invoking a medieval emperor's polemics against Islam. (The emperor had been defeated by the Ottomans and it stands to reason that he was bitter.)

The propaganda machine that immediately rushed to his aid stated that the Pope had not approved the statement. He was clumsy, but he committed no offence. As if quoting a diatribe without clearly rejecting it can have some purpose other than propagating it. But here the Pope had done more. He called Manuel II erudite --- a clear word of praise --- and approvingly reported the conclusion he drew, implying the validity of the emperor's reasoning.

Then came the explanations. First there was the Pope's disingenuous regret over the "reaction" of Muslims. Not over his words or actions but their reactions. A few days later the Pope justified his slander by asserting that it was a necessary rhetorical device. He said the offending quote was necessary "to introduce the audience to the drama and relevance" of his talk, reported Stacy Meichtry, of Religion News Service on 21 September 2006. Interestingly the media machine kept on berating Muslims for not accepting an apology that had never been offered.

In the midst of all this the Vatican condemned those who were misinterpreting the Papal quote. We need to ask them, in how many different ways can one interpret a quote like the following: "Show me just what Christianity brought, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, like inquisitions, forced conversions of millions of aborigines in America and Australia, and a brutal slave trade that decimated Africa."

Although the media machine cleverly missed it completely, the real issue is Islamophobia. This is not an issue that can be swept under the rug. The currents of Islamophobia are strong in the West today; especially so in Europe. And with the Pope putting the weight of his office behind this, it can only get uglier.

This ominous development threatens not only Muslims. Muslims have been natural allies of Catholics on moral issues like abortion. But by pointing its guns at them, the Vatican is going to weaken its own position. For those who value that alliance as well as tolerance and peace in the world, the big question remains: Can this Pope be reformed? Can he be made to see reason?
 

Ahmed ibn Ibrahim

alhamdulilah
hahah, good answer! the best answer, infact.


My answer is: NO. But that's me ... ;-p

I think he could be forced to resign though, concidering that he's supposed to be God's infallible representative here on Earth and yet he's made a big, stinky pile of a mistake for all to see and smell.

Let's start a petition to make this Nazi Pope Benny resign! ;D I'm sure they taught him harsh lessons regarding accountability during his time with the Nazi Youth; he'll understand.
 

christina

New Member
(Vatican) „pointing its guns at them“ (Muslims) ???????

Oh come on, please cool down.

It was a quotation during a lecture in the university of Regensburg in Germany where the pope used to teach students in former days when he was a cardinal. Indeed the lecture was about the human reason: one should use his/her reason to please god. Not using your reason when taking action in any situation, also concerning your belief, is not corresponding to God’s very nature.

The reaction of huge crowds of Muslims – about a single quotation! Used in an universitarian lecture! - all over the world was stunning. I consider this article to be part of this stunning reaction.

I bet you even didn’t read the pope’s speach before writing this long article.
 

stranger786

Dream of His Slavery
We never insult Jesus (PBUH)

(Vatican) „pointing its guns at them“ (Muslims) ???????

Oh come on, please cool down.

It was a quotation during a lecture in the university of Regensburg in Germany where the pope used to teach students in former days when he was a cardinal. Indeed the lecture was about the human reason: one should use his/her reason to please god. Not using your reason when taking action in any situation, also concerning your belief, is not corresponding to God’s very nature.

The reaction of huge crowds of Muslims – about a single quotation! Used in an universitarian lecture! - all over the world was stunning. I consider this article to be part of this stunning reaction.

I bet you even didn’t read the pope’s speach before writing this long article.


salam respected sister Christ.

I hope you will not like to listen it but these are bitter realities :

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2492219432040129850&q=channel+4+speech&hl=en

With respect and Prayers
Jav
 

dna1987

Muslim Guy
(Vatican) „pointing its guns at them“ (Muslims) ???????

Oh come on, please cool down.

It was a quotation during a lecture in the university of Regensburg in Germany where the pope used to teach students in former days when he was a cardinal. Indeed the lecture was about the human reason: one should use his/her reason to please god. Not using your reason when taking action in any situation, also concerning your belief, is not corresponding to God’s very nature.

The reaction of huge crowds of Muslims – about a single quotation! Used in an universitarian lecture! - all over the world was stunning. I consider this article to be part of this stunning reaction.

I bet you even didn’t read the pope’s speach before writing this long article.


I'm not sure about the "huge crowds" part, I think maybe the images from the cartoon dispute and the pope remarks are getting mixed up. The pope's remark annoyed a lot of people, but there definitely were no marches in the city I'm present in.

And yes I've read the entire speech from the Pope. And he uses a lot of big words. Sigh. The problems with this were two-fold. Firstly, he has the highest authorative figure of the entire catholic Christian society, should not have quoted what he did, from who he did.

Secondly, the media (I won't get into who controls it in detail .. zionists .. cough cough) purposefully repeated the "Pope says evil", and repeated that quote again and again to anger Muslims. Their purpose was to ignite more tension between the west and muslims. Everytime it starts to cool down, there will be another 'event' that will try and make Muslims look bad.

Not only that, in this case, the media also tried to make it look like there were violent reactions all across the world. A nun was killed in Somalia, and the attacks had "no direct relation" to the Pope's remark, nor was it confirmed that the gunman was a muslim, and BBC news actually said it's not related!! However, they decided to talk about this straight after talking about "how angry Muslims are over Pope's comments". You see, even though they will tell you the truth about the nun attacks after, most people will be subconsciously connecting the nun's death with muslim revenge.

Not to mention, this same damn media brings out one or two clerics that "have called for the Pope's death", while ignoring the hundreds of thousands of clerics that said peaceful things.
 

christina

New Member
@ stranger786

Hallo Jav!

„you will not like to listen it...“

...don’t worry, I followed the discussions about the pope quotation carefully in the german media. Mr. Taji Mustafa in the video is exactly repeating the point of view of the muslims, that proclaimed, the Pope did hurt their religious feelings. The central commitee of german Muslims criticised the Pope’s quotation; too, and demanded the Pope to apologize.

„(...) but these are bitter realities:“ (1)

Indeed these are. Taji Mustafa is member of the Hizb ut-Tahrir. This is an organisation of islamic extremists, that has been forbidden by law in Germany in January 2003 by our german government:

I quote Otto Schily (german minister of the interior):
„Hizb ut-Tahrir misuses the liberal legal system and order of state in Germany to spread propaganda of violence and inflammatory antisemitism. The organisation wants to sow hate and violent force. (..)"Hizb ut-Tahrir"‘s activity is opposed against the idea of understanding among nations. The organisation backs use of violence as a means to push political issues. "Hizb ut-Tahrir" negates the right to exist of the state of Israel and calls for its destruction. The organisation spreads very bad antisemitical hate propaganda and calls for killing jews.“​
(source: ministry of the interior of Germany / Deutsches Bundesministerum des Inneren Link: http://www.bmi.bund.de/cln_012/nn_1...verbietet__die__islamisch__Id__91334__de.html
translation by christina)


„(...) but these are bitter realities:“ (2)

Indeed these are. Mr. Mustafa did certainly not read the speach of the pope (though he says he did) or he didn’t understand the speach. It was a speach dedicated to students of theology and guests in a university about the relation of reason and religion and science. Mr. Mustafa says: „He (the Pope in his lecture) made a one-sided analysis that somehow Christianity is linked with reason, Islam is linked with violence“. That was not what was the lecture about and the Pope did not say that. What the Pope did say was, that in Islam God is believed to be absolutely transcendent, His will is not linked to any of our categories, so God is above all, also above reason and can demand even unreasable things from a human beeing if it is His will, according to Islam.

@ dna1987

„I'm not sure about the "huge crowds" part“

Well, I am sure. You can be sure, too. Just watch the video posted by stranger786. Even the radical islamistic extremistic terroristic Hizb ut-Tahrir doesn’t deny this.

„the media (I won't get into who controls it in detail .. zionists .. cough cough)“

*ironic cynism ON* Uuh, here we are, hugh??? Zionists ruling the world! Zionists source of all eval! Zionists controlling world media! *ironic cynism OFF*

There is no „cough cough“ about this. This is pure antisemitism. If this is your picture of the world, you should really work on it and really try to read and watch and discuss some very different sources. You can start with the book „Conspiracy“ by Daniel Pipes for example. Just to get conscious about that vicious idea of world conspiracy theories (any, not only the ‚zionists rule the media/world/US government‘ thing) in general that caused so much much much pain and suffer and caused millions of millions of deads in the world. If we’re talking about peace and interreligious and intercultural understanding, one of the first things will be to get rid of all the conspiracy theories. That’s one reason, why I’m discussing here in this forum. I want myself to avoid to believe in anti-islamic conspiracy theories. I want to listen to the people themselves and I will also read the Koran to know the source of your belief system.

„should not have quoted what he did, from who he did“

It was absolutely OK to quote it. If we want an interreligions dialogue we really need to understand what’s a deliberate insult and what’s a quotation in a lecture. It was not an inslult (the second questioner didn’t get that, too, during the discussion. To my eyes he seems to be a little unsure and unconcentraded anyway. I don’t consider him to be represantative). We need to talk openly and without self-imposed-censorship-that-might-avoid-misunderstandings. We may discuss and argue and analyse , but let emotional over-sensivity and self-imposed censorship beside. That’s exactly what the Pope did and I appreciate it - it is the very normal and usual way of lecturing in a school or university: using quotations from someone to show or illustrate something that the lecturer is in train to explain. The Pope as the leading head of the Catholic Church should be the last one to give this up.

Another example: if you’re lecturing about the Middle Age and you’d use a quotation which points out how bad Christianity is because of all those blood-thirsty crusaders and so on ... I don’t feel insulted at all. First of all Christianity developed a lot since the Middel Age to today, second of all: let’s discuss it and try to find the truth about what means Christian belief and what it was about in the Middle Age.
 

dna1987

Muslim Guy
christina said:
The reaction of huge crowds of Muslims - all over the world was stunning. I consider this article to be part of this stunning reaction.

There were certainly no huge crowds in my part of the world (Oceania), and definitely nothing violent whatsoever, as Islam teaches as to be peaceful.

There is no „cough cough“ about this. This is pure antisemitism. If this is your picture of the world, you should really work on it and really try to read and watch and discuss some very different sources. You can start with the book „Conspiracy“ by Daniel Pipes for example. Just to get conscious about that vicious idea of world conspiracy theories (any, not only the ‚zionists rule the media/world/US government‘ thing) in general that caused so much much much pain and suffer and caused millions of millions of deads in the world. If we’re talking about peace and interreligious and intercultural understanding, one of the first things will be to get rid of all the conspiracy theories. That’s one reason, why I’m discussing here in this forum. I want myself to avoid to believe in anti-islamic conspiracy theories. I want to listen to the people themselves and I will also read the Koran to know the source of your belief system.

Dear Christina, you have made a comment without any backing up to it, it's offending to call some one an "anti-semtie" without any support to the comment. Being against Zionism has nothing to do with being against the Jewish religion. There are 40 million Christian Zionists in the USA alone! That's about 8 times the total Jewish population in the US! There are Muslim Zionists (eg. King of Jordan).

And before you try and paste the "anti-semetic" label straight away, please check out these websites:
http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/

www.nkusa.org


The Rabbis clearly makes the distinction between Judaism and Zionism. They are not the same. And I have made clear only to refer to "Zionists" in my post, regardless of religion.

Please check out this video below too, the Zionist calls the Rabbi an anti-semite (lol), more proof that many people just throw around the term these days.

[yt]3dSHl3C9kgY[/yt]​



Another example: if you’re lecturing about the Middle Age and you’d use a quotation which points out how bad Christianity is because of all those blood-thirsty crusaders and so on ... I don’t feel insulted at all. First of all Christianity developed a lot since the Middel Age to today, second of all: let’s discuss it and try to find the truth about what means Christian belief and what it was about in the Middle Age.

The crusaders are not holy figures of the Christian religion, why would it be as offensive? If quotes were made against a guy, say..Muhammad Ali, he's a Muslim boxer, I wouldn't feel insulted whatsoever either. If the pope made used a quote like that against Osama bin Laden, no offence to any muslims either. However, the pope decided to take a quote against God's last Prophet:saw: . And no, you will never find Muslims "return the favour", as we all believe in Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him) too.

You said you were stunned by the Muslim reaction "all over the world" to the Pope's speech, were you also stunned that Muslims all over Australia and NZ boycotted Southpark, and urged others to boycot watching Southpark, after they made an episode that was very offensive to the Virgin Mary (pbuh) ??
 

christina

New Member
Hallo dna1987,

About the video you posted:

It’s a bad and injuring verbal fight, but even if the man shouting to the rabbis is very excited and angry and uses bad words like „idiots“, he’s rigth to call these anti-zionist Rabbis „anti-semits“. I know the sites you posted. These are very fundamental ultraorthodox Jews who deny the right to exist of the state of Israel. In denying this right they oppose the right of Jews to build a nation and they deny the right of about 8 Million Israelis to live in their own state. This is Anti-Semitism, even if it’s a Jew, expressing it. Don’t get confused: there is also jewish anti-semitism. (for more information you can read e.g. http://www.paulbogdanor.com/jewishstate.html)

You said:
„Secondly, the media (I won't get into who controls it in detail .. zionists .. cough cough) purposefully repeated the "Pope says evil", and repeated that quote again and again to anger Muslims.“

I refered to these words of you. They tell me, that you think that the media has deliberately pushed the whole Pope-quotation-thing in purpose of angering Muslims because the media is controled by Zionists.

Isn’t this what you wanted to say? If so: isn’t this a conspiracy theory? Whats a Zionist? A person, that acknowlegdes and supports the existence of a Jewish nation and a Jewish state of Israel. So you tell me, the Jewish-nation-Jewish-state-of-Israel-supporters control the media ... control it why, in favour of whom, of what, of „cough cough“? Of Mickey Mouse? So: isn’t that anti-semitic?
But: I apologize if I got you wrong. Maybe I misunderstood what you wanted to say. If so: SORRY!!!!

„Being against Zionism has nothing to do with being against the Jewish religion.“

The British All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Anti-Semitism in the UK published its report in September 2006. (...)

(...) The report states that left-wing activists and Muslim extremists are using criticism of Israel as a "pretext" for anti-Semitism, and that the "most worrying discovery" is that anti-Semitism appears to be entering the mainstream. The inquiry calls for the adoption of a clearer definition of anti-Semitism that reflects its "complex and multi-faceted" nature. It argues that anti-Zionism may become anti-Semitic when it adopts a view of Zionism as a "global force of unlimited power and malevolence throughout history," a definition that "bears no relation to the understanding that most Jews have of the concept: that is, a movement of Jewish national liberation ..." Having re-defined Zionism, traditional anti-Semitic motifs of Jewish "conspiratorial power, manipulation and subversion" are transferred from Jews onto Zionism. This is "at the core of the 'New Anti-Semitism'," the report concludes, adding that many of those who gave evidence called anti-Zionism "the lingua franca of antisemitic movements."​

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_antisemitism

More links:
http://www.jcpa.org/phas/phas-wistrich-f04.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1095694,00.html

Anti-Zionism = Anti-Semitism
by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

. . . You declare, my friend, that you do not hate the Jews, you are merely 'anti-Zionist.' And I say, let the truth ring forth from the high mountain tops, let it echo through the valleys of God's green earth: When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews--this is God's own truth.

Antisemitism, the hatred of the Jewish people, has been and remains a blot on the soul of mankind. In this we are in full agreement. So know also this: anti-Zionist is inherently antisemitic, and ever will be so.

Why is this? You know that Zionism is nothing less than the dream and ideal of the Jewish people returning to live in their own land. The Jewish people, the Scriptures tell us, once enjoyed a flourishing Commonwealth in the Holy Land. From this they were expelled by the Roman tyrant, the same Romans who cruelly murdered Our Lord. Driven from their homeland, their nation in ashes, forced to wander the globe, the Jewish people time and again suffered the lash of whichever tyrant happened to rule over them.

The Negro people, my friend, know what it is to suffer the torment of tyranny under rulers not of our choosing. Our brothers in Africa have begged, pleaded, requested--DEMANDED the recognition and realization of our inborn right to live in peace under our own sovereignty in our own country.

How easy it should be, for anyone who holds dear this inalienable right of all mankind, to understand and support the right of the Jewish People to live in their ancient Land of Israel. All men of good will exult in the fulfilment of God's promise, that his People should return in joy to rebuild their plundered land.

This is Zionism, nothing more, nothing less.

And what is anti-Zionist? It is the denial to the Jewish people of a fundamental right that we justly claim for the people of Africa and freely accord all other nations of the Globe. It is discrimination against Jews, my friend, because they are Jews. In short, it is antisemitism.

The antisemite rejoices at any opportunity to vent his malice. The times have made it unpopular, in the West, to proclaim openly a hatred of the Jews. This being the case, the antisemite must constantly seek new forms and forums for his poison. How he must revel in the new masquerade! He does not hate the Jews, he is just 'anti-Zionist'!

My friend, I do not accuse you of deliberate antisemitism. I know you feel, as I do, a deep love of truth and justice and a revulsion for racism, prejudice, and discrimination. But I know you have been misled--as others have been--into thinking you can be 'anti-Zionist' and yet remain true to these heartfelt principles that you and I share.

Let my words echo in the depths of your soul: When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews--make no mistake about it.

From M.L. King Jr., "Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend," Saturday Review_XLVII (Aug. 1967), p. 76.

„(...) were you also stunned that Muslims all over Australia and NZ boycotted Southpark, and urged others to boycot watching Southpark, after they made an episode that was very offensive to the Virgin Mary (pbuh) ??“

No, because I don’t watch Southpark, and I didn’t hear about it. Nevertheless, there is a difference between a TV film that openly and deliberately offends any religious holy person, no matter of what religion and a middle age quotation in a universitarien lecture.

„There were certainly no huge crowds in my part of the world (Oceania), and definitely nothing violent whatsoever, as Islam teaches as to be peaceful.“

I think you’re right: there weren’t violent protests all over the world. But there were protests all over the world – weren’t there?
(There’s an overview here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI_Islam_controversy)
 

dna1987

Muslim Guy
^^ Your posts are very hard to decipher, if you know how, please try and use the quote feature.

christina said:
These are very fundamental ultraorthodox Jews who deny the right to exist of the state of Israel. In denying this right they oppose the right of Jews to build a nation and they deny the right of about 8 Million Israelis to live in their own state.

8 million Israelis to live in their own state? :laughing-dancing:

I don't want to be offensive or anything, but did you just make up the figure? I could refute the rest of your post just by using this obviously distorted number you're trying to present as a fact. Perhaps everything else you posted is also a piece of fiction.

The population of Israel, in 2006, is around 6 million.
worldinfozone said:
Population
Israel's population was estimated at 6,352,117 in 2006. Just over eighty percent of the population is Jewish. The remainder of the population is mainly Arab.

Jewish citizens originate from all over the world including Europe, former USSR, Ethiopia, Morocco and Iraq.
http://www.worldinfozone.com/country.php?country=Israel

And these Rabbis to not acknowledge 6 million foreigners to live on "their own land"? Oh, I did not know that people from "Europe, former USSR, Ethiopia, Morocco and Iraq" all have land in Israel. If you convert to Hinduism today, can you claim that you should have land in India?

And how a practicing, Jewish Rabbi can be "anti-Jewish" kinda beats me. Where's the logic in that again?
The difference between Judaism and Zionism Before you try and defend that cursing, swearing man in the last video, and bad mouthing the Rabbi, maybe you should consider how much of a scholar you are on Judaism, yeah? How can a PRACTICING RABBI be against his own religion? No, he's trying to promote PEACE. It's amazing how many people have a problem with that.

Propaganda articles (the links you posted) written by zionists claiming that they are victims of "anti-semetism", when in reality they are disliked for their violent crimes against humanity, is not going to convince anybody.

I have heaps of other links; but I think this is not the right thread nor the right place for this discussion.

No, because I don’t watch Southpark, and I didn’t hear about it. Nevertheless, there is a difference between a TV film that openly and deliberately offends any religious holy person, no matter of what religion and a middle age quotation in a universitarien lecture.

I don't watch Southpark either, but I urged people who do to boycott it, or atleast that specific episode. The same people who protested and where offended by the Pope's speech remarks, were working beside Christians (specially Catholic, as the Mary (pbuh) has a bigger role in the sect of Christianity).

christina said:
I think you’re right: there weren’t violent protests all over the world. But there were protests all over the world – weren’t there?

If the protests were peaceful; then what's so stunning? People were offended.

Your reply will be "but they shouldn't have been offended in the first place, and therefore no need for peaceful protests either".

To which I replied to in my very first post, the media made it look like the Pope himself said bad things! Many newsanchors and channels would make statements such as: "The Pope has made degratory comments Islam - saying only evil has come from the of the Prophet Muhammad". What do you expect people/Muslims to think when they are watching this on the news? Non-muslims will think "whoa, the Pope said that? It must be true, he's a nice guy". And Muslims will think "I can't believed the Pope said that, it's very offensive".

In fact, I only found the pope had quoted somebody when I looked into it online. Until then, I too thought the pope actually said those things. I've had to post three times in this thread only to go back in a cycle.

You find worldwide protests "stunning". The media displayed in the story in such a misleading fashion, it's no surprise there were protests (peaceful ones at that; you agreed on this already). Why the media would do that (furthen the gap between muslims and non-muslims) and for what agenda is another story.
 

christina

New Member
Hallo dna1987,

In fact, I only found the pope had quoted somebody when I looked into it online.

Hmm... I don't know which media you watch/read. Here in Germany it wasn't reported at all but only when the violent protests and the peaceful demands for apologize came up, the media reported - but it did correct.

There was e.g. a turkish Muslim represantativ who was very upset and demanded apologize, when after discussing the issue he admitted not to even have read the speach of the Pope.

Then: it was about Zionism, not about Judaism only we were talking above, right? You don’t have to be an ultraorthodox Jew to be a zionist and or/and a Jew. A Jew might consider himself to be a Jew even if he/she’s not practicing the religion at all.

About the „8 millions“: I was wrong, I wrote it down from my head and didn’t look it up. Why are you so excited about the wrong number? So let it be 6 or 5 million Jews in Israel. It’s just a number. It doesn’t change the fact that if one denies the right to exist for the state of Israel, in claiming one is an anti-zionist, one is talking antisemite. What would you say, if you are, say, spanish, and someone tells you: hey, this state (=your home) should disappear! Is that anti-spanish or not? Again: the rabbi from the video is an ultraorthodox Jew. I didn’t say he’s anti-religious as you said „anti-jewish“, but if he’s an anti-zionist, denying the right to exist of Israel, he’s an anti-semite (see also European Commission definition of antisemitism: http://eumc.eu.int/eumc/material/pub/AS/AS-WorkingDefinition-draft.pdf)
He’s not „anti-jewish“ as you called it, in the religious way - in the very opposite he is ultra-religious. They are a small fanatic minority and do not represent the very avarage opinion neither of the israeli Jews nor of other Jews in the world.
You can read here: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/nk.html, see also http://www.zionism-israel.com/his/jewish_anti_zionism.htm

„Jewish anti-Zionism has always been the most effective weapon in the hands of the enemies of Israel. Anti-Zionists are happy to quote the protests of anti-Zionist Jews (...) They neglect to note that the militant anti-Zionist Jews always represented a small and ever-shrinking minority, and that they today consist of a tiny handful of very vocal polemicists, whose views are magnified and echoed by anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic journals and Web sites.“​
from http://www.zionism-israel.com/his/jewish_anti_zionism.htm

I share this view.

(btw if any source that is not anti-zionist but zionist in your eyes is „propaganda“ I can’t help you. Maybe you can google and try to find other sources that you consider to have more credibility than the sources I post here.)

You as a Muslim certainly don’t want to be identified with any Muslim extremists that spread hate and think they have to fight for Islam with weapons and terror attacks. But these extremists claim to act the way they do because of their religion, because of Islam, because of what is written in your Holy Book. The very very majority of Muslims (99,9999999%) would never like to be even compared to them, right? You wouldn’t share their views, right? Though you are religious, too. But you’re not a fanatic person.

Why should every Jew be represented by a few fanatic ultraorthodox Jews, who denies Israel‘s right to exist? You can find extreme opinions in every group of people in the world. Here in Germany we have some left-extremists and also some right-extremists. They are a true minority and you’re very wrong if you think that their way of thinking is representative in any way for Germany. In the contrary, there are always discussions to forbid by law the small party of the right-extremists, because they are anti-democratic. Indeed they are enemies of the state of Germany.

About what you called the ‚zionist propaganda-articles‘, the rabbi promoting peace, the question about the muslim reaction violent and non-violent and in which countries and if we can say it was all over the world or not and in which way the media and ‚by whom‘ and ‚why‘, as you mention it, is indeed somehow too much for this post. Though I suspect we wouldn’t agree about these points either ;-) I would still like to suggest that it is very important to really doubt and mistrust any conspiracy theory as I think they are causing a lot of misunderstanding, eval and pain in the world.

Now, for the end: you’re right ...
Your reply will be "but they shouldn't have been offended in the first place, and therefore no need for peaceful protests either".
– hey, where did you know ?? ;-)
(and protests were not only peaceful, as I wrote above and I think really nobody doubts)

I sincerely wish you all the best, christina
 

Bluegazer

Junior Member
Hello Christina,


This is my first participation on this forum.

First of all, I'd like to comment on your following phrase:

I would still like to suggest that it is very important to really doubt and mistrust any conspiracy theory as I think they are causing a lot of misunderstanding, eval and pain in the world.


To a certain extent, I agree with you. In the Muslim world many people are very easily convinced of a conspiracy theory every time something bad happens to Muslims. [i.e. in every single bad occurrence]

However, it would be pretty naive to rule out once and for all that there are no conspiracies at all against Islam.

As a Muslim, I see how Western media portrays Muslims, and it's just not that objective. There are exceptions, and some of the videos on this website [showing the reasons why people in the West revert to Islam] were produced by Western media companies, such as Channel 4 and the BBC in the UK.


The second point is more like an article. The following article is entitled "Muhammad's Sword". It was written by a Jewish atheist named Uri Avnery on the 23rd of September 2006.

Before pasting the article, I think I should mention that Uri Avnery is an Israeli journalist, writer and peace activist.

Earlier in his life, he served as a member of Samson's Foxes commando unit in 1948 [i.e. he was fighting for the establishment of an Israeli State in Palestine], and he was wounded in action [2 times]. He served 3 terms as a member of the Knesset (Israeli Parliament).

For details of Uri Avnery, click on the following link:

http://www.avnery-news.co.il/english/uri.html

I mentioned all the details above in order to tell you that, even though he's a peace activist, he was also one of those who fought and risked his life for the establishment of what he believes [and certainly not what I believe] should be his country.

And now, here's Uri Avnery's article..... [Note: I have put square brackets [] around sentences I do not agree with, and I have added a note of my own]:


Since the days when Roman Emperors threw Christians to the lions, the relations between the emperors and the heads of the church have undergone many changes.

Constantine the Great, who became Emperor in the year 306 - exactly 1700 years ago - encouraged the practice of Christianity in the empire, which included Palestine. Centuries later, the church split into an Eastern (Orthodox) and a Western (Catholic) part. In the West, the Bishop of Rome, who acquired the title of Pope, demanded that the Emperor accept his superiority.


The struggle between the Emperors and the Popes played a central role in European history and divided the peoples. It knew ups and downs. Some Emperors dismissed or expelled a Pope, some Popes dismissed or excommunicated an Emperor. One of the Emperors, Henry IV, "walked to Canossa", standing for three days barefoot in the snow in front of the Pope's castle, until the Pope deigned to annul his excommunication.

But there were times when Emperors and Popes lived in peace with each other. We are witnessing such a period today. Between the present Pope, Benedict XVI, and the present Emperor, George Bush II, there exists a wonderful harmony. Last week's speech by the Pope, which aroused a world-wide storm, went well with Bush's crusade against "Islamofascism", in the context of the "Clash of Civilizations".

IN HIS lecture at a German university, the 265th Pope described what he sees as a huge difference between Christianity and Islam: while Christianity is based on reason, Islam denies it. While Christians see the logic of God's actions, Muslims deny that there is any such logic in the actions of Allah.

As a Jewish atheist, I do not intend to enter the fray of this debate. It is much beyond my humble abilities to understand the logic of the Pope. But I cannot overlook one passage, which concerns me too, as an Israeli living near the fault-line of this "war of civilizations".

In order to prove the lack of reason in Islam, the Pope asserts that the prophet Muhammad ordered his followers to spread their religion by the sword. According to the Pope, that is unreasonable, because faith is born of the soul, not of the body. How can the sword influence the soul?

To support his case, the Pope quoted - of all people - a Byzantine Emperor, who belonged, of course, to the competing Eastern Church. At the end of the 14th century, the Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus told of a debate he had - or so he said (its occurrence is in doubt) - with an unnamed Persian Muslim scholar. In the heat of the argument, the Emperor (according to himself) flung the following words at his adversary:

"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".

These words give rise to three questions: (a) Why did the Emperor say them? (b) Are they true? (c) Why did the present Pope quote them?

WHEN MANUEL II wrote his treatise, he was the head of a dying empire. He assumed power in 1391, when only a few provinces of the once illustrious empire remained. These, too, were already under Turkish threat.

At that point in time, the Ottoman Turks had reached the banks of the Danube. They had conquered Bulgaria and the north of Greece, and had twice defeated relieving armies sent by Europe to save the Eastern Empire. On May 29, 1453, only a few years after Manuel's death, his capital, Constantinople (the present Istanbul) fell to the Turks, putting an end to the Empire that had lasted for more than a thousand years.

During his reign, Manuel made the rounds of the capitals of Europe in an attempt to drum up support. He promised to reunite the church. There is no doubt that he wrote his religious treatise in order to incite the Christian countries against the Turks and convince them to start a new crusade. The aim was practical, theology was serving politics.

In this sense, the quote serves exactly the requirements of the present Emperor, George Bush II. He, too, wants to unite the Christian world against the mainly Muslim "Axis of Evil". Moreover, the Turks are again knocking on the doors of Europe, this time peacefully. It is well known that the Pope supports the forces that object to the entry of Turkey into the European Union.

IS THERE any truth in Manuel's argument?

The pope himself threw in a word of caution. As a serious and renowned theologian, he could not afford to falsify written texts. Therefore, he admitted that the Qur'an specifically forbade the spreading of the faith by force. He quoted the second Sura, verse 256 [(strangely fallible, for a pope, he meant verse 257)] [My words, not Uri Avnery's: The Pope was correct in his citation of verse 256] which says: "There must be no coercion in matters of faith".

How can one ignore such an unequivocal statement? The Pope simply argues that this commandment was laid down by the prophet when he was at the beginning of his career, still weak and powerless, but that later on he ordered the use of the sword in the service of the faith. Such an order does not exist in the Qur'an. True, Muhammad called for the use of the sword in his war against opposing tribes - Christian, Jewish and others - in Arabia, when he was building his state. But that was a political act, not a religious one; basically a fight for territory, not for the spreading of the faith.

Jesus said: "You will recognize them by their fruits." The treatment of other religions by Islam must be judged by a simple test: How did the Muslim rulers behave for more than a thousand years, when they had the power to "spread the faith by the sword"?

Well, they just did not.

For many centuries, the Muslims ruled Greece. Did the Greeks become Muslims? Did anyone even try to Islamize them? On the contrary, Christian Greeks held the highest positions in the Ottoman administration. The Bulgarians, Serbs, Romanians, Hungarians and other European nations lived at one time or another under Ottoman rule and clung to their Christian faith. Nobody compelled them to become Muslims and all of them remained devoutly Christian.

True, the Albanians did convert to Islam, and so did the Bosniaks. But nobody argues that they did this under duress. [They adopted Islam in order to become favorites of the government and enjoy the fruits.]

In 1099, the Crusaders conquered Jerusalem and massacred its Muslim and Jewish inhabitants indiscriminately, in the name of the gentle Jesus. At that time, 400 years into the occupation of Palestine by the Muslims, Christians were still the majority in the country. Throughout this long period, no effort was made to impose Islam on them. Only after the expulsion of the Crusaders from the country, did the majority of the inhabitants start to adopt the Arabic language and the Muslim faith - and they were the forefathers of most of today's Palestinians.

THERE IS no evidence whatsoever of any attempt to impose Islam on the Jews. As is well known, under Muslim rule the Jews of Spain enjoyed a bloom the like of which the Jews did not enjoy anywhere else until almost our time. Poets like Yehuda Halevy wrote in Arabic, as did the great Maimonides. In Muslim Spain, Jews were ministers, poets, scientists. In Muslim Toledo, Christian, Jewish and Muslim scholars worked together and translated the ancient Greek philosophical and scientific texts. That was, indeed, the Golden Age. How would this have been possible, had the Prophet decreed the "spreading of the faith by the sword"?

What happened afterwards is even more telling. When the Catholics re-conquered Spain from the Muslims, they instituted a reign of religious terror. The Jews and the Muslims were presented with a cruel choice: to become Christians, to be massacred or to leave. And where did the hundreds of thousand of Jews, who refused to abandon their faith, escape? Almost all of them were received with open arms in the Muslim countries. The Sephardi ("Spanish") Jews settled all over the Muslim world, from Morocco in the west to Iraq in the east, from Bulgaria (then part of the Ottoman Empire) in the north to Sudan in the south. Nowhere were they persecuted. They knew nothing like the tortures of the Inquisition, the flames of the auto-da-fe, the pogroms, the terrible mass-expulsions that took place in almost all Christian countries, up to the Holocaust.

WHY? Because Islam expressly prohibited any persecution of the "peoples of the book". In Islamic society, a special place was reserved for Jews and Christians. They did not enjoy completely equal rights, but almost. They had to pay a special poll-tax, but were exempted from military service - a trade-off that was quite welcome to many Jews. [It has been said that Muslim rulers frowned upon any attempt to convert Jews to Islam even by gentle persuasion - because it entailed the loss of taxes.]

Every honest Jew who knows the history of his people cannot but feel a deep sense of gratitude to Islam, which has protected the Jews for fifty generations, while the Christian world persecuted the Jews and tried many times "by the sword" to get them to abandon their faith.

THE STORY about "spreading the faith by the sword" is an evil legend, one of the myths that grew up in Europe during the great wars against the Muslims - the reconquista of Spain by the Christians, the Crusades and the repulsion of the Turks, who almost conquered Vienna. I suspect that the German Pope, too, honestly believes in these fables. That means that the leader of the Catholic world, who is a Christian theologian in his own right, did not make the effort to study the history of other religions.

Why did he utter these words in public? And why now?

There is no escape from viewing them against the background of the new Crusade of Bush and his evangelist supporters, with his slogans of "Islamofascism" and the "Global War on Terrorism" - when "terrorism" has become a synonym for Muslims. For Bush's handlers, this is a cynical attempt to justify the domination of the world's oil resources. Not for the first time in history, a religious robe is spread to cover the nakedness of economic interests; not for the first time, a robbers' expedition becomes a Crusade.

The speech of the Pope blends into this effort. Who can foretell the dire consequences?

Source: http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1159094813/


I hope you all the best Christina.

Regards,

Bluegazer
 

christina

New Member
Hallo Bluegazer!

However, it would be pretty naive to rule out once and for all that there are no conspiracies at all against Islam.

I’d agree on this, though I don’t know what conspiracies against Islam there should be out in the world. OK, I’d consider e.g. Al Quaeda terrorists as a true conspiracy, that are foremost against the west, but if we take a closer look they are also against Islam because they misuse and insult Islam for their ideology and in misusing Islam in claiming it to be the source of their believe they are against all Muslims, too, because all non-Muslims might get suspicious about Islam and about Muslims, who believe in Islam.

I think Uri Avnery’s article pretty expresses your point of view about the Pope’s quotation and that’s why you posted it, right?

These words give rise to three questions: (a) Why did the Emperor say them? (b) Are they true? (c) Why did the present Pope quote them?

Nice questions, but it was not what the Pope was talking about.
My answers are:
(a) because it was the Emperor‘s opinion
(b) to those who indeed spreaded Islam with the sword: yes (today: e.g. Al Quaeda), to those who didn’t: no (today: huge majority of Muslims).
(c) because he used the dialog as an illustration of the problem​

If you read the speach you can easily see that the Pope didn’t discuss the Emperors prejudices or mood or background but the Pope discussed the relation between reason and religion/way to God.

Maybe so everybody knows about what we’re talking about, I should copypaste the relevant part of the speech. Here we go:

„(...) 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.[1] 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.[2] 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 (διάλεξις - 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 some of the experts, this is probably 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, a brusqueness that we find unacceptable, 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.”[3] 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 (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...".[4]

The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature.[5] 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.[6] Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazm 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.[7]

At this point, as far as understanding of God and thus the concrete practice of religion is concerned, we are faced with an unavoidable dilemma. 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. (...)“​

Source: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/b...vi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html

About Uri Avnery’s thoughts: I’m sorry, I don’t know if he is right about the fight for territory thing and about the whole history because I’m not into it at all. But again: that’s not what the Pope was talking about. It was not about if the Emperor was right or wrong and what was behind his words about „only evil and inhuman“ but about reason and faith.

Everybody can read the speech and can think about it, and can come to conclusions and explore the history or even correct the grammar and so on ... whatever you like.

And about the end of Avnery’s text .. OK here we are again: evil Bush, conspiracy against all Muslims and of course: the oil. ... I think, if you really want to see it like that, like Uri Avnery: not terrorists against the world but world against Islam, Bush in war not because of terrorism but for oil, Pope not lecturing but cooperating in a conspiracy against Muslims, I can’t help anyway. You will always find people that support this view. I think, it’s somewhere in the soul, that people need an explanation and a name for the reason why things are as they are, especially when things are going bad. People need a ‚bad guy‘ and an ‚evil force‘ behind it all. But nevertheless it is wrong.

When you’re walking in the city to a place where a lot of shops are and many people. Isn’t is fascinating, that even if there are a lot of people they’re not all in front of one shop or not all come the same time? Instead, it’s always well scattered, if you climb a tower and look down on the place you can even see that people don’t crash into each other. It is as if the people knew where the others go and go elsewhere and elsewhen. Never do they all go to one direction ... it just happens, even without anyone who tells them where and when to go and without the people would talk to each other to know where and when the others go. It just happens.

Have a good time! christina
 

Bluegazer

Junior Member
Hello Christina,


To begin with, I apologise for my late response. I ask you to patiently read this long response.

You posted the following in response to my earlier statement "However, it would be pretty naive to rule out once and for all that there are no conspiracies at all against Islam.":


I’d agree on this, though I don’t know what conspiracies against Islam there should be out in the world. OK, I’d consider e.g. Al Quaeda terrorists as a true conspiracy, that are foremost against the west, but if we take a closer look they are also against Islam because they misuse and insult Islam for their ideology and in misusing Islam in claiming it to be the source of their believe they are against all Muslims, too, because all non-Muslims might get suspicious about Islam and about Muslims, who believe in Islam.


I'm glad you agree with me that there are conspiracies against Islam. However, [and you'll probably be surprised by this] I do not agree that Al-Qaeda's responsibility in regards to the events of 9/11 is a conspiracy. They repeatedly claimed responsibility for these detestable acts in video recordings. And if, for arguments sake only, we presume that these video recordings were fabricated, then by keeping silent and not proclaiming their innocence, they make their responsibility for these acts of terrorism more believable.

Having said that, I'm also glad you posted the following:

to those who indeed spreaded Islam with the sword: yes (today: e.g. Al Quaeda), to those who didn’t: no (today: huge majority of Muslims).


Your realisation that the huge majority of Muslims are not like Al Qaeda shows your objectivity, which is something many Westerners need to apply in regards to their views on Islam and Muslims.

I don't think Al-Qaeda had spreading Islam in their minds when they decided to commit the acts of 9/11. They had other aims, such as the cessation of U.S. aid and support for the State of Israel.


Moving on to areas of disagreement, I'll discuss the following points:

1- My choice of an article by Uri Avnery

2- The argument that the Pope was not discussing Islam, but that his lecture was about reason and religion

3- Your statement about your knowledge of history


1- My choice of an article by Uri Avnery

You posted the following:

I think Uri Avnery’s article pretty expresses your point of view about the Pope’s quotation and that’s why you posted it, right?


Yes, you're right. However, look at the history of this person I'm quoting. He's a Jewish atheist who emigrated to Palestine and fought in the 1948 war to establish the State of Israel. He was a member of the Israeli Parliament. You'd think that this man would say terrible things about the religion of Islam [even though he's now a peace activist], and yet what does he say?:

"Every honest Jew who knows the history of his people cannot but feel a deep sense of gratitude to Islam, which has protected the Jews for fifty generations, while the Christian world persecuted the Jews and tried many times "by the sword" to get them to abandon their faith."

This is just one of many passages in which this man objectively analysed the history of Islam and Muslims.

When words of praise comes from an enemy, then one must truly think about them. It makes it much more likely that they are words which truly describe the situation.


2- The argument that the Pope was not discussing Islam, but that his lecture was about reason and religion


You posted the following [as a response to Uri Avnery's question (c) "Why did the present Pope quote them?" -meaning the words of the Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus-]

because he used the dialog as an illustration of the problem


You also posted the following:

If you read the speach you can easily see that the Pope didn’t discuss the Emperors prejudices or mood or background but the Pope discussed the relation between reason and religion/way to God.


And you posted the following:

But again: that’s not what the Pope was talking about. It was not about if the Emperor was right or wrong and what was behind his words about „only evil and inhuman“ but about reason and faith
.


I thank you for pasting the relevant part of the Pope's speech and the link to the whole speech. In order to be fair in my analysis, I read the whole speech. Here, I noted three points:

1- The Pope described Emperor Manuel II as "erudite":

"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 "

[I underlined the word "erudite"]


What does "erudite" mean?

According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, it means:

"possessing or displaying erudition : LEARNED <an erudite scholar> "


Source: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/erudite


So, the Pope described Emperor Manuel II as a learned man.

Don't you think that this is an approval of his words [even though in an indirect way]?


2- The Pope disapproved of the Emeperor's "brusqueness":

"he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness, a brusqueness that we find unacceptable"


And what does the word "brusqueness" mean?

According to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, the word "brusque" means the following:

"Function: adjective
Etymology: French brusque, from Italian brusco, from Medieval Latin bruscus butcher's-broom (plant with bristly twigs)
1 : markedly short and abrupt
2 : blunt in manner or speech often to the point of ungracious harshness
synonym see BLUFF
- brusque·ly adverb
- brusque·ness noun "


Source: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/brusqueness


So, the Pope felt that the Emperor was too blunt or harsh in the words he had to say to the Persian Muslim man. Still, that does not mean that the Pope disapproves of the message itself. He just disapproves of the way in which it was delivered. One can speak the truth in a kind way, or he can speak it in a blunt and harsh way, hence the phrase "harsh reality".


3- I understand that the speech dealt with the subject of reason and religion and that the refernce to Islam was only a small part of the speech.

However, when the Pope tried to show that [according to his belief] Christianity and reason go hand in hand, he chose to quote the Emperor Manuel II in full [i.e. including the derogatory remarks about Prophet Muhammad's [peace be upon him] message].

When one quotes a saying by someone, that means that he approves the phrase he quoted, unless he clearly indicates otherwise. The Pope did not indicate [in his speech] his disapproval of Emperor Manuel II's remarks about Muhammad [peace be upon him], and therefore it is very understandable that Muslims understood that it was an attack on Muhammad's [peace be upon him] message.

You yourself understand this. When you commented about my decision to paste Uri Avnery's article, you said the following:

I think Uri Avnery’s article pretty expresses your point of view about the Pope’s quotation and that’s why you posted it, right?

Likewise I say, "I think Manuel II's words pretty expresses the Pope's point of view about Islam and that's why he quoted him, right?"

And that's why, before I quoted Uri Avnery's article, I wrote the following warning:

"[Note: I have put square brackets [] around sentences I do not agree with, and I have added a note of my own]"

Did the Pope say [when he dlivered the speech] that he did not believe Manuel II's words about Islam? The answer is a simple and resounding "no". Therefore, it shouldn't come as a surprise that Muslims [and indeed every objective non Muslim] understand this to be an attack on Islam.

Having said all of the above, it should be noted that the Pope added a footnote numbered [3] -which deals with Manuel II's views on Islam- which said the following:

"[3] Controversy VII, 2 c: Khoury, pp. 142-143; Förstel, vol. I, VII. Dialog 1.5, pp. 240-241. In the Muslim world, this quotation has unfortunately been taken as an expression of my personal position, thus arousing understandable indignation. I hope that the reader of my text can see immediately that this sentence does not express my personal view of the Qur’an, for which I have the respect due to the holy book of a great religion. In quoting the text of the Emperor Manuel II, I intended solely to draw out the essential relationship between faith and reason. On this point I am in agreement with Manuel II, but without endorsing his polemic."

Source: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/b...vi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html


If he made it clear in his speech that he did not endorse Manuel II's words about Islam, then there would have been no controversy in the Islamic World.


3- Your statement about your knowledge of history


You posted the following:

About Uri Avnery’s thoughts: I’m sorry, I don’t know if he is right about the fight for territory thing and about the whole history because I’m not into it at all.


I sincerely advise you to do some research and find out for yourself if what Uri Avnery said was correct. Because if it is correct -and I sincerely do believe it is correct- then the Pope is basically talking about how it's important not to spread a religion by force when it is Christianity [particularly the Catholic branch] that used force to convert people to Christianity.

An example was the case of the Moriscos. The following are parts of articles found in the wikipedia website:

"From the late 1400s to the early 1600s Moors (Iberian Muslims) were given the choice to either convert from Islam to Catholicism or leave Iberia. The Moriscos were expelled by the decree of 1610 from Spain to North Africa after being persecuted by the Spanish Inquisition."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moriscos


So, you can sense how I as a Muslim feel when Pope Benedict XVI speaks about forcing an individual to accept a religion by physical threats, when the history of the Catholic Church is filled with such cases.


I hope you all the best Christina.

Regards,

Bluegazer
 

haqa

New Member
(Vatican) „pointing its guns at them“ (Muslims) ???????

Oh come on, please cool down.

It was a quotation during a lecture in the university of Regensburg in Germany where the pope used to teach students in former days when he was a cardinal. Indeed the lecture was about the human reason: one should use his/her reason to please god. Not using your reason when taking action in any situation, also concerning your belief, is not corresponding to God’s very nature.

The reaction of huge crowds of Muslims – about a single quotation! Used in an universitarian lecture! - all over the world was stunning. I consider this article to be part of this stunning reaction.

I bet you even didn’t read the pope’s speach before writing this long article.

There is no need to read something we hear. But the question is:
Does pope ever read about islam or just has his own prejudices about non christian people, in this case islam and muslims.
If his speech in this university has been alaud to be conducted then what can we expect from young generation taught by such pope?
 
Top