http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=30935
I'd like to know your commentys before I make a statement.
SHOULD THE POPE APOLOGIZE TO MUSLIMS
Moderator: Moderators
Post #2
I heard this on the news today and it actually made me laugh out loud. They reported that the Pope had said that everything Mohammed came up with was evil, and then in his apology said he 'didn't mean to offend' anyone with the statement. 
Post #3
He was quoting someone else.. these are not his words..
The pope is merely pointing out the influence of 'Islam by the sword' which was going on in those days and the effect this had on this emperor. He is not interpretting all Islam now in this way.
He clearly leads to this point here..
erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus said the words... "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached"Pope wrote:In the seventh conversation (*4V8,>4H - controversy) edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion". According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur'an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached". The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably (F×< 8`(T) is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death..."
The pope is merely pointing out the influence of 'Islam by the sword' which was going on in those days and the effect this had on this emperor. He is not interpretting all Islam now in this way.
He clearly leads to this point here..
It is clear that those who would seek to prove the emperor wrong in what he wrote should not resort to.... violence or threats....Pope wrote:Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats
Post #4
The Pope could have done without the quote.
I think the overall point still would have offended the Muslims.
That being the use of reason is the gift God gave us to know him by whereas with Muslims God is transcendant even of his own word.
Do you think it is offending the Muslim faith to point out this difference.
I think the overall point still would have offended the Muslims.
That being the use of reason is the gift God gave us to know him by whereas with Muslims God is transcendant even of his own word.
Do you think it is offending the Muslim faith to point out this difference.
Post #5
jjg
Were it Christians who were doing the evils that some of the Muslim faith are doing today, I would hope someone in the Christian faith would have the courage to speak out against it. I do not hear such voices from anyone in the Muslim faith.
Personally this is one of the principle reasons I reject all religions, they tend to do evil things no matter what their intent is. Often these evils are committed by those who believe themselves justified by those religious beliefs. More conflict has been caused by religious differences than by any other source throughout the history of man. With religious wackos getting their hands on nuclear weapons can we afford a lasse' faire attitude any longer???
Grumpy
Were it Christians who were doing the evils that some of the Muslim faith are doing today, I would hope someone in the Christian faith would have the courage to speak out against it. I do not hear such voices from anyone in the Muslim faith.
Personally this is one of the principle reasons I reject all religions, they tend to do evil things no matter what their intent is. Often these evils are committed by those who believe themselves justified by those religious beliefs. More conflict has been caused by religious differences than by any other source throughout the history of man. With religious wackos getting their hands on nuclear weapons can we afford a lasse' faire attitude any longer???
Grumpy
Post #6
Grumpy, I have to disagree with you. Secular ideology has killed multiple millions of people in the last century alone. Vastly more than any thing supposedly linked to religion.
If you look at most of these religious conflicts, they are all social-political aimed to grab land etc.
I won't say some greedy people haven't tried to coerce religion to get people to fight for them, but the religion itself says otherwise.
In fact, the religious values in a lot of circumstances have stemmed conflicts from becomming all out blood baths.
Mohammid was involved in warfare but I think he's rolling over in his grave if sees what is going on.
If you look at most of these religious conflicts, they are all social-political aimed to grab land etc.
I won't say some greedy people haven't tried to coerce religion to get people to fight for them, but the religion itself says otherwise.
In fact, the religious values in a lot of circumstances have stemmed conflicts from becomming all out blood baths.
Mohammid was involved in warfare but I think he's rolling over in his grave if sees what is going on.
Post #7
Whether religion or secular forces have killed more people aside, the issue here is one of free speech.
Ratzinger should not apologize to anyone for what he said. Though, from his pulpit, he certainly speaks for many people and should thus be mindful of that fact, he has a right to say what he thinks on any matter, and to quote whomever he chooses to advance any point he chooses to make.
Outraged Muslims, or anyone for that matter, also have the right (and in some cases the obligation) to speak out in opposition. But the use of violence is unwarranted and barbaric. In this time, it is of utmost importance to be critical of whatever those in power (and those not) say or do, keeping always in mind that each of us has the right to speak freely and more importantly, frankly.
Ratzinger should not apologize to anyone for what he said. Though, from his pulpit, he certainly speaks for many people and should thus be mindful of that fact, he has a right to say what he thinks on any matter, and to quote whomever he chooses to advance any point he chooses to make.
Outraged Muslims, or anyone for that matter, also have the right (and in some cases the obligation) to speak out in opposition. But the use of violence is unwarranted and barbaric. In this time, it is of utmost importance to be critical of whatever those in power (and those not) say or do, keeping always in mind that each of us has the right to speak freely and more importantly, frankly.
Men at ease have contempt for misfortune
as the fate of those whose feet are slipping.
as the fate of those whose feet are slipping.
Post #8
I think the speech was supposed to open dialogue on violence and religion in general, but it was theologically thick.
It's sort of humourous to see the Pope right something so theologically thick and then have Tehran turn aroiund and accuse him of a "Zionist trap".
It's sort of humourous to see the Pope right something so theologically thick and then have Tehran turn aroiund and accuse him of a "Zionist trap".
-
The Persnickety Platypus
- Guru
- Posts: 1233
- Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 11:03 pm
Post #9
"So, you think you get away with calling our religion violent, eh? We'll show you violence! Off with his head!"
Seriously. Do they not see the irony in this?
On the other side of the spectrum...
People can blabber on about one's inherent right to free speech all they want. Look at this from a public relation's standpoint. What is the best way to make peace with an angry animal? Leave it alone; give it it's space? Or incessantly prod it with sharp stick (e.g. Danish cartoons, the Pope's comment)? We all know how anal Muslims are over this stupid stuff. Why do we continue to shove it in their face?
I am going to broaden the scope a little bit, because I feel that this issue is but one side effect of a much larger dillema plaqing contemporary times.
Islam has dominated the Middle East for centuries. They have done thing's their way for as long as they can remember. Extreme religious conservatism dominates Mid East society, largely because the entire region has always been so secluded from any and all foreign influences.
Then along comes Isreal. Centuries of hardship and persecution in Europe have finally taken their toll on the Jews, and the holy land begins to beckon. The second half of the century also has a number of other invasions upon the perfectly ordered Muslim society; amoung them, technological expansion, globalization, and of course, oil. TV and Radio opens up many Muslim people to a brave new world beyond the confines of their nation's borders. Foriegn government's and various global enterprises intrude upon hallowed Islamic ground, bringing with them scary new ideologies touting democracy and individual freedom. The ideological specter of Jesus begin's entering once the once forbidden ground of Muslim society, converting many people in the region, and appearing to many devout Muslims as threatening Islam's political dominance. The effects of these various new invasions are easily noted in the recent levels of Muslim violence.
Let's put this into another perspective. Back to the "angry animal" metaphor:
Let's say that the Middle East is an island out in the ocean, dominated by a single animal representing the Muslim people. The rest of the world is the mainland, with many various sorts of animals interacting together (foriegn nations, different ideologies, and the Western world in particular).
The ocean seperating the two represents the barriers (geographical, political, technological) that have seperated these two factions of the world for centuries- until just recently.
What do you think will happen if a number of these mainland animals migrate to the island, bringing with them their unique appearances, individual feeding habits, ect. The isolated animal, overwhelmed by this sudden change, and unaccustomed to the new competition, will naturally lash out. Provoking the animal is not going to get it to warm up to these new intruders any better. In the same way, shoving free speech (an entirely foreign concept to most Muslims) right into their faces is not doing anything for our cause. It is not going to "open up" any rational religious discussion, as the Pope so naively asserts. Muslim's are only going to lash out, and resist Western assimilation further.
Middle Easterners live in society's where dissention is not only socially condemnable, but downright illegal. They cannot come to terms with the fact that the Pope is speaking in a society where words are not censored. They cannot understand why criticizing Mohammed (a man so obviously righteous to them) in Vatican City does not entail the same punishments would apply in their own society. When you think about this phenomena, it is really not all that surprising. Americans likewise often criticize nations with political principles unlike our own, unable to understand why the principles which appear to work for us would not work just as well in an entirely different part of the world.
Shoving free speech, democracy, and liberal philosophy down the Muslim world's throat all at once is not going to render any positive results. Some lines need to be drawn. The Western world needs to disengage itself from all Mid East matters that it can afford to let be. The Muslim world will not warm up to Western ideals overnight. Lasting reform will only occur as it has in other successful endeavors; gradually. We are not going to change the people currently in power. It is the upcomming generations that foreign powers should be gearing towards. Youths are more open to change. Gradually they will figure out that our society is more ideal than the current regimes, and shall eventually change their nation's accordingly.
My conclusion(s):
The pope= Right, but stupid and tactless
Muslims= Wrong, but excusably ignorant
US foreign policy= Just wrong
Mohammed= A miserable role model
Seriously. Do they not see the irony in this?
On the other side of the spectrum...
The pope can certainly say whatever he pleases. However, that in no way makes what he said any less stupid. He did a grave disservice to humanity in saying what he did.Ratzinger should not apologize to anyone for what he said. Though, from his pulpit, he certainly speaks for many people and should thus be mindful of that fact, he has a right to say what he thinks on any matter, and to quote whomever he chooses to advance any point he chooses to make.
People can blabber on about one's inherent right to free speech all they want. Look at this from a public relation's standpoint. What is the best way to make peace with an angry animal? Leave it alone; give it it's space? Or incessantly prod it with sharp stick (e.g. Danish cartoons, the Pope's comment)? We all know how anal Muslims are over this stupid stuff. Why do we continue to shove it in their face?
I am going to broaden the scope a little bit, because I feel that this issue is but one side effect of a much larger dillema plaqing contemporary times.
Islam has dominated the Middle East for centuries. They have done thing's their way for as long as they can remember. Extreme religious conservatism dominates Mid East society, largely because the entire region has always been so secluded from any and all foreign influences.
Then along comes Isreal. Centuries of hardship and persecution in Europe have finally taken their toll on the Jews, and the holy land begins to beckon. The second half of the century also has a number of other invasions upon the perfectly ordered Muslim society; amoung them, technological expansion, globalization, and of course, oil. TV and Radio opens up many Muslim people to a brave new world beyond the confines of their nation's borders. Foriegn government's and various global enterprises intrude upon hallowed Islamic ground, bringing with them scary new ideologies touting democracy and individual freedom. The ideological specter of Jesus begin's entering once the once forbidden ground of Muslim society, converting many people in the region, and appearing to many devout Muslims as threatening Islam's political dominance. The effects of these various new invasions are easily noted in the recent levels of Muslim violence.
Let's put this into another perspective. Back to the "angry animal" metaphor:
Let's say that the Middle East is an island out in the ocean, dominated by a single animal representing the Muslim people. The rest of the world is the mainland, with many various sorts of animals interacting together (foriegn nations, different ideologies, and the Western world in particular).
The ocean seperating the two represents the barriers (geographical, political, technological) that have seperated these two factions of the world for centuries- until just recently.
What do you think will happen if a number of these mainland animals migrate to the island, bringing with them their unique appearances, individual feeding habits, ect. The isolated animal, overwhelmed by this sudden change, and unaccustomed to the new competition, will naturally lash out. Provoking the animal is not going to get it to warm up to these new intruders any better. In the same way, shoving free speech (an entirely foreign concept to most Muslims) right into their faces is not doing anything for our cause. It is not going to "open up" any rational religious discussion, as the Pope so naively asserts. Muslim's are only going to lash out, and resist Western assimilation further.
Middle Easterners live in society's where dissention is not only socially condemnable, but downright illegal. They cannot come to terms with the fact that the Pope is speaking in a society where words are not censored. They cannot understand why criticizing Mohammed (a man so obviously righteous to them) in Vatican City does not entail the same punishments would apply in their own society. When you think about this phenomena, it is really not all that surprising. Americans likewise often criticize nations with political principles unlike our own, unable to understand why the principles which appear to work for us would not work just as well in an entirely different part of the world.
Shoving free speech, democracy, and liberal philosophy down the Muslim world's throat all at once is not going to render any positive results. Some lines need to be drawn. The Western world needs to disengage itself from all Mid East matters that it can afford to let be. The Muslim world will not warm up to Western ideals overnight. Lasting reform will only occur as it has in other successful endeavors; gradually. We are not going to change the people currently in power. It is the upcomming generations that foreign powers should be gearing towards. Youths are more open to change. Gradually they will figure out that our society is more ideal than the current regimes, and shall eventually change their nation's accordingly.
My conclusion(s):
The pope= Right, but stupid and tactless
Muslims= Wrong, but excusably ignorant
US foreign policy= Just wrong
Mohammed= A miserable role model
Post #10
Sort of ironic that Cat Stevens would jump on the Pope bashing bandwagon for comments the Pope made that were taken out of context.
This is the same thing that happened to Stevens with the Salman Rushdie issue.
Stevens says Ghandi was a great example, but who shot Ghandi? A Muslim.
Also I never saw Stevens near the media after 9/11 condeming "Muslims' for those acts.
This is the same thing that happened to Stevens with the Salman Rushdie issue.
Stevens says Ghandi was a great example, but who shot Ghandi? A Muslim.
Also I never saw Stevens near the media after 9/11 condeming "Muslims' for those acts.
