Muslims and the pope

[JP226]

If they aren't careful they are going to get a real crusade slapped on their ass

The furore over comments made by Pope Benedict about the Islamic concept of Holy War continues to grow. Today British Muslims joined in, fiercely criticising his remarks.

The pontiff was accused of falling into "the trap of bigots and racists" with the comments he made on a visit to Germany.

• Muslims must do more to integrate, says Archbishop

Last night Vatican officials were scrambling to defend the comments, saying the Pope had never intended to offend Muslims.

During a speech, he quoted a 14th century Byzantine emperor who said the prophet Mohammed had brought "things only evil and inhuman".

But Britain's Ramadhan Foundation, a youth organisation based in Rochdale, reacted angrily to the comments, comparing the Pope unfavourably to his predecessor John Paul II.

In a statement it said: "If the Pope wanted to attack Islam and Prophet Muhammad teachings he could have been brave enough to say it personally without quoting a 14th century Byzantine Christian emperor.

"The late Pope John Paul II spent over 25 years to build bridges and links with the Muslim community. He showed the world that its perception of Islam was false and that we are peace-loving people.

"The Ramadhan Foundation is disappointed that the current Pope has not followed the example of his predecessor; it is essential in today's world that we link together and encourage a wider understanding of our different faiths, celebrating our religious differences is essential in a ever expanding world."

Muhammad Umar, chairman of the foundation, said: "This attack on Islam and Prophet Muhammad by Pope Benedict is recognition that he has fallen into the trap of the bigots and racists when it comes to judging Islam on the actions of a small number of extreme elements."

The Pope's speech quoted from a book recounting a conversation between 14th century Byzantine Christian Emperor Manuel Paleologos II and an educated Persian on the truths of Christianity and Islam.

"The emperor comes to speak about the issue of jihad, holy war," the Pope said.

"He said, I quote, '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'."

Benedict described the phrases on Islam as "brusque", while neither explicitly agreeing with nor repudiating them.

Pakistan's parliament condemned the "derogatory" remarks today and demanded an apology. The country's foreign ministry said they were "regrettable" and claimed they would encourage violence.

Vatican spokesman the Rev Federico Lombardi issued a statement defending the speech after Pope Benedict returned to Rome. "It certainly wasn't the intention of the Pope to carry out a deep examination of jihad (holy war) and on Muslim thought on it, much less to offend the sensibility of Muslim believers," he said.

He insisted that the pontiff wanted to "cultivate an attitude of respect and dialogue toward the other religions and cultures, obviously also toward Islam".

But Turkey's top Islamic cleric Ali Bardakoglu asked Benedict to apologise and made a string of accusations against Christianity, raising tensions ahead of a planned papal visit to the country in November.

He said he was deeply offended by the remarks and called them "extraordinarily worrying, saddening and unfortunate".

The 57-nation Organisation of the Islamic Conference, based in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, said it regretted "the Pope's quote and for the other falsifications". Militant Islamic websites also attacked the Pope.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...&icc=NEWS&ct=5

whoops, wrong forum, if some mod could please move, I made a mistake.

[imb39]

Moved to Ethos. Seems to be a distinctly religious debate. - imb39

Well, the Pope's infallible, isn't he? :hmmm:

[Wild Bill Kelso]

I am curious to see what top Islamic religious leaders have said about Christianity recently. I am sure it isn't nice either.

[Oldgamer]

Moved to Ethos. Seems to be a distinctly religious debate. - imb39

Well, the Pope's infallible, isn't he? :hmmm:

Only when he speaks ex cathedra.

It really doesn't matter what he believes to be true or what you believe to be true. What matters is that he is a Pope afterall. He is supposed to bring about unity, peace, and understanding between the Catholics and other demoniations, as well as between all Christians and the non-Christians.

He has to choose his words more carefully.

I think that he did choose his words carefully. Quite carefully.

As I understand it, the Pope wishes to enter into a dialogue with Islam and the West's secularists. He drew a serious comparison between both of them in his speech, and contrasted them to Christianity.

The day after September 11, at Bavaria’s University of Regensberg, Pope Benedict describes Christian belief in a God whose words and acts are bound by reason, truth and the law of non-contradiction. Benedict contrasts this with Islamic belief in a God not bound by anything—including his own words. Benedict further contrasts Christian belief with that of secular humanists who see reason as being completely unbound of God.

Islamic reaction focuses on one sentence in the speech. Reaching back to 1391, Benedict quotes Byzantine Emperor Manuel II: “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.”

“Will to Power” is a key element of Nietzsche ’s philosophy—hence the root of the term, Islamofascist. Moreover the Western “Left’ is today guided far more by Nietzsche existentialist thought than by Marxist thought—hence the alliance between the Western “Left” and the Islamofascist "Right."

The secularist mouthpiece, New York Times,editorializes, “Pope Benedict XVI has insulted Muslims….”

This is false. The Pope’s description of the Islamic God as being unbound by reason is not an insult, it is an Islamic article of faith. What Muslims and secularists fear is the Pope’s decision to choose to enter dialogue asserting his belief in Christianity. How dare he not “apologize” for being a Christian? That is the so-called “insult.”

The Times continues: “Muslim leaders the world over have demanded apologies… For many Muslims, holy war — jihad — is a spiritual struggle, and not a call to violence.”

In saying this, the Times implicitly recognizes the Islamists are waging a propaganda jihad against the Pope and by extension against Christianity—and they explicitly endorse and join this jihad. The Times is saying to Islamists, ‘we can join your ‘spiritual’ jihad, but not your violent jihad.

Muslims all over the world demand the Pope's apology ... his submission ... and the secularist's mouthpiece-of-choice demand it also. Like the Islamists, the secularists are driven only by their will to power. While the Islamists represent their version of God--unrestrained by reason, the secularists represent their version of reason--unrestrained by God. They are united by their self-worshipping world view.

What the Islamic world and the New York Times both fear is having to reply to the Pope’s key point, borrowed from the Byzantine Emperor: “‘Not to act reasonably, not to act with logos (word or reason) is contrary to the nature of God,’.… It is to this great logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures.”

Their fear of reason can only lead the world to disaster.

[Bwaho]

and so will the peaceful muslims once again protest using violent methods?

[Lancea Quantum]

and so will the peaceful muslims once again protest using violent methods?

Quite ironic that with the cartoons they were protesting (with violence) against the cartoons that potrayed Allah (or whoever it was) as being a violent terrorist. Hmm...

[Richard the Lionheart]

Quite ironic that with the cartoons they were protesting (with violence) against the cartoons that potrayed Allah (or whoever it was) as being a violent terrorist. Hmm...

The actions of some men (the protestors) do not determine the characteristics of another man (Muhammed), especially when he (Muhammed) lived and died before they (the protestors) ever even existed.

[Dromikaites]

The actions of some men (the protestors) do not determine the characteristics of another man (Muhammed), especially when he (Muhammed) lived and died before they (the protestors) ever even existed.

You're right, the only connection between the protesters and Muhammed is the religion Muhammed fabricated.

What the 14th century Byzantine Emperor Manuel Comnenus was saying (and what the current Pope chose to quote from Manuel) is exactly that Mohammed created a religion of violence. Something that seems to be true if we consider the violent behavior of a lot of the members of that religion on the occasion of the cartoons, as seen on TV.

EDIT:
And what you actually do is to prevent such violent behavior from happening in the future, isn't it?

[Erik]

and so will the peaceful muslims once again protest using violent methods?

I live in an area with 50% muslims, so let me look out the window for the awnser....


...nope, still peacefull outside.

[Ummon]

I live in an area with 50% muslims, so let me look out the window for the awnser....


...nope, still peacefull outside.

The exact word. Still.

Yet... Theo van Gogh? Pym Fortuyn?

See, the way they see it, their lands are being occupied and their homes get demolished when they don't have proper building permits because they don't get granted such building permits. And the houses that they do have, get regularly bombed to the ground.

If in my mind I see black as white and white as black, you may say that I have a different culture, but I have more likely problems distinguishing colours.

And yet Bin Laden is still free and his terrorist organization still exists. But hey, at least a bunch of civilians are dead and now there is even more reason for them to hate us and support the terrorists.

The number of civilians who have died is surely regrettable, yet it fully amounts to the fact that all conflict has been in cities. As was most terrorism, directed to kill muslims, and not americans. One who fights to kill the most of his own people, shouldn't accuse others of his guilt.

Well let's see. I'm sure they don't see it that way. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians are dead thanks to massive bombing campaigns. And their country is now at a brink of Civil War.

More like 15000-20000, and not because of bombing of civilian facilities. Which didn't occur.

Yes, nonsense get's used by both sides of extremism.

The problem is that I see no extremism on this side. I see no one putting car bombs before mosques. Or burning effigies of Khamenei. I really don't.

One wonders why.

[Sétanta]

Well let's see. I'm sure they don't see it that way. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians are dead thanks to massive bombing campaigns. And their country is now at a brink of Civil War

Actually only about 40,000 civilians have died in the war because of the American invasion. That is a number way down from the number killed under Saddam Hussein. Just so you know, it is usually nice to back up your claim so they seem somewhat logical.

[Richard the Lionheart]

Actually only about 40,000 civilians have died because of the American invasion. That is a number way down from the number killed under Saddam Hussein. Just so you know, it is usually nice to back up your claim so they seem somewhat logical.

Ah yes, anywhere between 43154-47931 Iraqi civilians have been killed. Such a small number.

[Bwaho]

Hmmm...I haven't seen you say anything bad about Christianity and women. Why target Islam alone?

now that's a poor dodge, but I'll play along.


We simply got into the subject of Islam and so I decided to add my two cents. I have stated my views on christianity in many other threads...infact I have been focusing more on christianity than islam during my forum time here so it's only fair that islam gets something back now

[Ummon]

Actually only about 40,000 civilians have died in the war because of the American invasion. That is a number way down from the number killed under Saddam Hussein. Just so you know, it is usually nice to back up your claim so they seem somewhat logical.

I had a vague remembrance of other figures, but let's assume yours.

[Erik]

The exact word. Still.

Yet... Theo van Gogh? Pym Fortuyn?

Pim Fortuyn?

You DO know he wasn't killed by a muslim, do you?

How exactly would rules which apply for Muhammad, not apply to the Pope? And more precisely, why can muslim leaders insult the cross, Jesus, and discuss the behaviour of Christians, and Christians cannot educately differ from what is Islamic?

When do Muslims ever insult Jesus?

You DO know Muslims worship Jesus as one of their Profets too, right?

[Ummon]

Pim Fortuyn?

You DO know he wasn't killed by a muslim, do you?

Wasn't Fortuyn killed for his political stances?

Volkert van der Graaf (born July 9, 1969) is the confessed murderer of Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn. Although Van der Graaf is often described as supporter of animal rights, he confessed in court to murdering Fortuyn to stop him from targeting "the weak parts of society to score points" in seeking political power. [1]

Doesn't this include muslims?

When do Muslims ever insult Jesus?

You DO know Muslims worship Jesus as one of their Profets too, right?

But perhaps you are not aware that for example, the cross has been publicly defined by some prominent Muslims "that awful corpse". Because Muslims do not believe that Jesus was crucifixed. Recently one muslim Imam has brought the Italian State to a process to ask that crucifixes were eliminated from public places in Italy because they were "offensive".

[Silver Guard]

Trawling through the pages of nothing I eventualy found redemption in the form of Ummons last post not in responce to the people not worth debating with, Erik, or tGS...

If in my mind I see black as white and white as black, you may say that I have a different culture, but I have more likely problems distinguishing colours.

The problem is that I see no extremism on this side. I see no one putting car bombs before mosques. Or burning effigies of Khamenei. I really don't.

One wonders why.

You're blind, go see an optician

The number of civilians who have died is surely regrettable, yet it fully amounts to the fact that all conflict has been in cities. As was most terrorism, directed to kill muslims, and not americans. One who fights to kill the most of his own people, shouldn't accuse others of his guilt.

Those killed during the bombing of Dresden were regretable deaths in the face of the Nazi menice, the nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were worthwhile to preserve the lives of loyal americans and the survival of democracy.
Or from the other side: The Jews must be exterminated to pave the way to the rightful superiority of the Aryan race

The reason for this is that these statements mirror your statement that it is 'regretable' that muslims died in the second gulf war.

More like 15000-20000, and not because of bombing of civilian facilities. Which didn't occur.

Do you watch the news? The plumes of smoke rising from cities, cities have people, bombs kill people, bombing cities kill people. Cities are civilian facilities

[Ummon]

Trawling through the pages of nothing I eventualy found redemption in the form of Ummons last post not in responce to the people not worth debating with, Erik, or tGS...

You should have maybe read with more attention. Though in truth, I never said "not worth debating with", I openly dislike debate based on:

1) trying to hijack the opponents argument to make it sound different from what it is, a typical behaviour for Erik.
2) repeating the same question over and over again, an activity in which, Squeakus, if you cared to notice his post count and parse a few of his threads, excels.

You're blind, go see an optician.

I'd rather see evidence of your claims.

Those killed during the bombing of Dresden were regretable deaths in the face of the Nazi menice, the nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were worthwhile to preserve the lives of loyal americans and the survival of democracy.
Or from the other side: The Jews must be exterminated to pave the way to the rightful superiority of the Aryan race

The reason for this is that these statements mirror your statement that it is 'regretable' that muslims died in the second gulf war.

Quite the opposite. I do not say, infact, that Iraq war had to be waged, while the allies say the Nazists had to be beaten, Hitler thought the Jews had to be exterminated, and the US decided to drop the bomb to avoid losing men in Japan.

So why exactly, should I take responsibility for something which I do not advocate?

Additionally, do you think that all these deaths are not regrettable?

Do you watch the news? The plumes of smoke rising from cities, cities have people, bombs kill people, bombing cities kill people. Cities are civilian facilities

How exactly does this change the choice of terrorists and insurgents to fight in urban areas?

[VALIS]

this is rediculous.

the pope was quoting a byzantine emperor from 600 years ago,the pope was quoted out of context.
once again muslims are going to go ape out of the smallest provocation.

the most so called 'moderate' muslim is the equivelant to the most fanatic and extreme christain around, that makes extreme muslims rate completley of the bloody scale!

[Sitarus Originalus PM-30+]

this is rediculous.

the pope was quoting a byzantine emperor from 600 years ago,the pope was quoted out of context.
once again muslims are going to go ape out of the smallest provocation.

the most so called 'moderate' muslim is the equivelant to the most fanatic and extreme christain around, that makes extreme muslims rate completley of the bloody scale!

well, yes... i totall agree with you...
also... everything he said is written in Coran ... to spread the religion with the sword and so on... i dont know what and why muslims always want to be presented as the ones who are the victims al the time... and yet their religion approve wars!
i cant say and neither did Pope that all muslims are fanatics and bad or evil... no, hell no... but acting like this and threatening to Pope to appologize... well.. threatening to the realtions between the churchs and them...
i must say i think more every day and every act muslims do as comunity ... well .... i cant help myself but to think muslims just want to do the opposite from what west wants. i dont say we are better, but our culture tries to prevent wars, prevent dissputes an so on, but muslims just waits and look for troubles! it isnt fair and it isnt peaceful if they can not take any criticism wile west and church should jst swallow what they say or do... howmany flags did muslims on middle east burn this week only?? well... burning a nacional flag is to the nation also rude ... an act of war actually! religion is not only fate on this world ... i personally am more nationalist then anything and am also hurt when a national flag is burning! but do i start making more problems when some groups of people burn flags?? ...
well this is my oppinion, so to all who dissagree with me - dont bother,i am only human who has oppinion and believes.
+ And if i was Pope i would never apologize for quoting things from Coran.