Pope's speech ignites worldwide controversy/ Islam insulted

windovervocalcords

Former Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2005
Messages
2,189
Reaction score
0
What do folks think he wanted to accomplish?

There is a link to the Pope's speech in its entirety within this article:

Is he not stating that the real Muslim teachings are those advocating intolerance and violence, and that Christian teachings pose a rational nonviolent alternative? Such an interpretation, aligning the Vatican with the neocon and other Islamophobic camps, could have serious religious and political implications.
http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp09162006.html





Reverend Robert Taft, a specialist in Islamic affairs at Rome's Pontifical Oriental Institute, said it was unlikely that the pope miscalculated how some Muslims would receive his speech.



Analysts said the Catholic leader's speech was a sign that he
intends to carry on with his strong defence of the values of the Christian West rather than compromise for the sake of building bonds with Islam.
 
One of the first signs of a toughening of the Vatican's stance came with the removal from office of Archbishop Michael Fitzgerald. The British-born cleric ran a Vatican department that promoted dialogue with other religions. A distinguished scholar on Arab affairs, he was an acknowledged expert on the Islamic world.

The decision by Benedict XVI to remove him from his post, and send him to Egypt as papal nuncio, was widely seen as a demotion.

Some wondered about the wisdom of the move.

Father Thomas Reese, a Jesuit scholar and an authority on the workings of the Vatican, told the BBC news website of his concerns: "The Pope's worst decision so far has been the exiling of Archbishop Fitzgerald," he said in an interview in April this year.

"He was the smartest guy in the Vatican on relations with Muslims. You don't exile someone like that, you listen to them.

"If the Vatican says something dumb about Muslims, people will die in parts of Africa and churches will be burned in Indonesia, let alone what happens in the Middle East. It would be better for the Pope to have Fitzgerald close to him." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5352404.stm
 
windovervocalcords said:
What do folks think he wanted to accomplish?

There is a link to the Pope's speech in its entirety within this article:

Is he not stating that the real Muslim teachings are those advocating intolerance and violence, and that Christian teachings pose a rational nonviolent alternative? Such an interpretation, aligning the Vatican with the neocon and other Islamophobic camps, could have serious religious and political implications.
http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp09162006.html







Reverend Robert Taft, a specialist in Islamic affairs at Rome's Pontifical Oriental Institute, said it was unlikely that the pope miscalculated how some Muslims would receive his speech.





Analysts said the Catholic leader's speech was a sign that he
intends to carry on with his strong defence of the values of the Christian West rather than compromise for the sake of building bonds with Islam.



If They can't handle the truth then possibly they should reighn in the zealots and re-evaluate their belief system.
I am not Catholic but what the Pope said was the truth.
More Muslims kill Muslims then us "infidels" do.
The Koran does promote violence .......
 
Muslims interpret jihad as a spiritual battle within.

Terrorists using Fundamentalist Islamic teachings misuse the term jihad to mean condoning violence.

Violent anti-abortion Christian fundamentalists use the bible to justify violence. They will quote you bible chapter and verse to justify their actions.

If you seek to find violence in the koran or the bible you will find it. If you seek to find peaceful teachings in the koran or the bible you find them.

The point is do you try and put out a fire with kerosene?

IMO the Pope has enormous clout politically and spiritually. He can use it to make waves or to calm the waters.

I do not know who the Muslim equivalent of the Pope is or even if they have one. Do you?

Muslim leaders are missing opportunities to create goodwill and peacemaking also.

I do not think it furthers the interests of peace to make statements like Muslims kill more Muslims etc etc and to present that as though it is "truth" without any statistical backup.

Sounds like Fox/faux news to me. JMO
 
Executive Director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, Salam Al-Marayati and Senior Advisor Dr. Maher Hathout, stressed the need for the Vatican and Catholic leaders to clarify and explain the remarks. The letter states in part:

“In this spirit of dialogue and understanding that we continue to further, we would like to call for a meeting and dialogue regarding the recent comments made by Pope Benedict XVI. We do not want to allow for those individuals who call for divisiveness at such volatile times to speak on behalf of our communities. We pray that our continued dialogue will bear fruit and that this issue will be clarified in the most appropriate manner.”
http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/muslims_call_for_dialogue_in_response_to_popes_remarks_on_islam/0010938

"Jihad is a central and broad Islamic concept that includes struggle against evil inclinations within oneself, struggle to improve the quality of life in society, struggle in the battlefield for self-defense (e.g., - having a standing army for national defence), or fighting against tyranny or oppression,” the Council on American Islamic Relations explained.

The Council also called on Muslims to “maintain good relations with the people of other faiths, and to engage in constructive dialogue.”
Strong reactions against the Pope's remarked sparked off when he quoted on Tuesday, during his visit to Germany, a 14th century Byzantine Christian Emperor as saying “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”

Many religious leaders and organisations condemned the comments. Some voices warned that this could lead to more misunderstanding and violence around the world.
http://www.moroccotimes.com/Paper/article.asp?idr=6&id=17074
 
windovervocalcords said:
Violent anti-abortion Christian fundamentalists use the bible to justify violence. They will quote you bible chapter and verse to justify their actions.

In extremely small numbers - nowhere near the same proportion. Compare how many deaths have been reported by an anti-abortion activist in the last week, month, or year to how many deaths from Muslim extremists. Not even in the same league.

Also, no one in a leadership position in the church condones this. Actually violent protest is condemned by every Catholic I know, including the Church leaders.
 
We have to look at all of it. Factions divided show a mindset that almost always follow a truth. I am not a strong Catholic anymore but I am a strong believer in truth.To me, this is the starting point. The pope is trying to say that religious killings are not appropriate.He is speaking from history and evolution and trying to say tolerance is good and killing for beliefs is wrong. This is my interpretation.

We have to remenber how primitive we were hundreds of years ago.
 
I think its hypocritical of muslim fundamentalists..have you ever heard bin laden or the ayatola (spelled wrong)..etc speak in favor of christianity?
Personally I think they have no room to talk where creating violence and living violence is concerned.
The Pope is Catholic-why would he favor any other religion if in fact thats what he was saying..he may not have been- but he is entitled to favor his religion. I favor western civilization- I embrace other cultures but I wouldnt be interested in being a muslim - sometimes I think all organized religion is a license to kill-too much killing is done it its name..but u cant fault the pope for favoring democracy based religion. (which in and of itself doesnt really exist..what democracy is there in any religion?)
 
They are not exactly helping to prove him wrong when they respond with violence, as they have in a few instances already.
 
A stupid over-reaction on the part of these Moslems. I don't think they even listened to what the Pope was saying, and I actually do believe that going back into the 6th Century Moslems liveds and conquered by the sword.

Hey, I'm not too proud of the Scandanavian Vikings pillaging and plundering in their early days of exploration, but I accept the fact that is what my ancestors did. If Moslems were out to rather conquer lands than pillage and plunder, and they did it by the sword, why don't their people now accept that?

I'll tell you why: The Scandanavians stopped their barbarian activities as they became civilized. The Moslems never did obviously. They have factions alive today that live and want to rule by the sword. They never really became civilized. Yes, they could figure out how to create phenominal architectural feats, but never really became civilized. Even to this day they live at some of the lowest standards there are on earth.



Scandi
 
I wonder could these be the same muslims who were chanting and celebrating allah akbar on 9/11? The pope does not have to explain himself if the muslims took him the wrong way thats their problem the pope did not mean it in the way they interpreted it. Off topic here but the pope was just in my town here in Regensburg it was a fantastic experience.
 
We can't always say things in a perfectly semantic way that pleases everyone. If we did things would be pretty dull wouldn't they - "Oh, hello, how are you? That's lovely. So nice. Have a good day."

It seems like groups, even over here can be pretty "reactive". A politician or public figure has to watch every word they say - and people can make such a big deal out of a misstep. That's politics. People should think it over before they "react". Then issue a public or private letter or statement. That's called "civilized".

We just had a huge school shooting foiled. Murders and rapes happen every day. Are we "civilized"? As a group, we try to be. We have our basic system in place. Do they have school shootings in Egypt, or Syria? I really don't know. Jordan?

I don't think we can lump Muslims all in one group; if we do, we're going to do ourselves in. They do seem to be very "reactive" over certain things, and they definitely seem wary of our culture right now, as we are of them.
 
"In a wise, informative new book, `Being Muslim,’ Canadian author Haroon Siddiqui describes how 83,000 mostly Muslim `terrorism suspects’ were arrested in the US and abroad. Only 40 were convicted of terrorism; 100 died in custody. These blanket arrests and a McCarthyite anti-Muslim witch hunt, observes Siddiqui, have created a sense of `psychological internment’ among 7 million American and Canadian Muslims that recalls the odious confinement of innocent Japanese-Americans during World War II."
http://www.ericmargolis.com/archives/2006/09/five_years_late.php

Letter to the Pope from India:

"Respected Sir,
We the Indian Muslim Community as well as the secular masses of India are extremely perturbed by your recent fulminations which are basically an affront to Islam and our Prophet Muhammad (p.b.u.h.). Even though your statements have hurt our sentiments, we assure you that in no way will they hinder the cordial relations that we enjoy with our Indian Christian brethren. We do accept your apologies and also request you to refrain from making such ill informed, prejudiced and ahistorical statements in the future. You have every right to voice your opinion though we humbly suggest that you study the works of at least the German scholars of Islam who have over the centuries contributed to a constructive and analytical critique of Islam. Indeed your verbal barrage has been untimely to say the least.

We have come at a very critical stage for inter-faith relations globally.. (more at link)


Humanity is at an abyss. We stand at the crossroads. One path is that of wars, destruction and armageddon, the other is the path of love, justice and peace and the spiritual evolution of humanity and all of God's Creation. The choice is clear and for you to make.

We look forward to the day when people of all the faiths of the world can dwell in peace, in the spirit of the teachings of Prophet Muhammad (p.b.u.h.), Gautam Buddha (p.b.u.h.) and Jesus Christ (p.b.u.h.) - the common legacy and teachers of humanity.

Warm Regards,

Feroze H. Mithiborwala (Social Activist)
Syed Iftikhar Ahmed (Editor, Weekly Shodhan, Mumbai)
Sarfaraz Arzu (Editor, Daily Hindustan, Mumbai)
Meraj Siddiqui (Social Activist)
Hanif Lakdawala (Academic)
Muhammad Anis (Social Activist)

17 September 2006
Mumbai - India

http://www.milligazette.com/dailyupdate/2006/20060917_muhammad_Pope_Benedict_prophet_islam.htm

Muslims Condemn Terrorist Attacks:
http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php
 
http://www.peacejam.org/meet_laureates.htm

Beginning Friday, Nobel Peace laureates including the Dalai Lama, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Costa Rican President Oscar Arias Sanchez will call on youths to perform a billion "acts of peace" over the next decade -- anything from mentoring younger children or planting a tree to creating programs that help the less fortunate, building communities and pressing international leaders for peace.

Rudy Balles was at the first rally a decade ago. Five years after losing a friend to gang violence and himself a former gang member, Balles said he was filled with frustration and anger when he went to meet 1992 laureate Rigoberta Menchu Tum, who campaigned for peace in Guatemala.

"I started seeing the successes of Rigoberta's people, and how noble it was, and I saw I couldn't do any less," said Balles, who lives in Denver. "This is a real leader, she's not a pop icon. I needed to make no less of a commitment to peace. Violence is easy."
http://cbs4denver.com/local/local_story_256200448.html
 
Dark Knight said:
They are not exactly helping to prove him wrong when they respond with violence, as they have in a few instances already.
That is a point well taken.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/isl_war.htm

Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan (1890-1988), a Pathan (or Pushtun) of Afghanistan, a devout Muslim, raised the first nonviolent army in history to free his people from British imperial rule. He persuaded 100,000 of his countrymen to lay down the guns they had made themselves and vow to fight nonviolently. This book tells the dramatic life-story of this heroic and too-little-known Muslim leader.
http://www.gxonlinestore.org/badshah.html

"Mohammad Ali El Husseini wore the black robe and black turban that are typical of some Shiite religious leaders. He greeted us, gave us copies of his book and started explaining his belief in peacemaking and nonviolence.
"The same as you teach the soldier how to have a philosophy of war, you have to teach the people how to have a philosophy of peace," he said.

Mohammad Ali El Husseini's book cites Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. as influences. He speaks approvingly of Jesus Christ's nonviolent life and teachings. Most frequently, he quotes Islamic proponents of nonviolence, such as Imam Muhammad Shirazi.

Fundamentally, Mohammad Ali El Husseini argues in his book that peacemaking and nonviolence are central to Islam and that violence is rarely justified. "

Mohammad Ali El Husseini said he believes that about 20 percent of his fellow Lebanese Shiite Muslims share his views on nonviolence. However, he said it is difficult for him to compete with more militant voices."
http://www.mcc.org/news/news/2006/2006-09-01_peacemaker.html
 
I believe the Pope is a good person and promotes peace.

That's why I am disappointed,(and some what taken aback), in the Pope for making these remarks at such a time when relations with the Muslim religion is so fragile.
Because of this we have to go back to windovervocalcords question of "What do you think the Pope was trying to accomlish?" He had to know his statement was not going to be taken well,and may even promote violence. So what was he, during these very touchy times,trying to accomplish?
 
The Pope's comments are complicated. One would have to be a very qualified theological scholar to comprehend the message and the meaning.

There was an interesting editorial in my local paper today which made a bit of sense of the situation for me. I have highlighted below points that struck me as valid.

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/theeditorialpage/story.html?id=51b89da7-32ff-4783-9786-1a2e82262706

When Pope John Paul II apologized for past anti-Semitism within Christian communities, he did what few of his critics thought possible: face up to an ugly history within the church.

It is also, it should be noted, the church that protected Jews during the Second World War. The often -- but wrongly -- maligned Pope Pius XII provided shelter for 3,000 Jews in his Italian summer residence in Castel Gandolfo and thus kept them safe. Pius also intervened with Hungarian leaders to stop deportations of Jews, something Rabbi David G. Dalin credits with helping save 170,000 Hungarian Jews.

These facts affirm that almost any faith can produce good or evil. It is a mark of humility to acknowledge one's own belief system has at times produced both. This past week, Pope Benedict XVI, in the tradition of the last pontiff, condemned so-called "holy wars" as well as forced conversions. He noted, "Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul."

Part of the address by the Christian pontiff will irritate some in the Islamic world, but if the West and Islam are ever to get along better, some frank dialogue is necessary lest the balance be unfairly weighted: only past western wrongs are registered.

On the Islamic side, it is the case that the Crusades were not a one-sided affair -- most wars never are. As noted by eminent Princeton historian Bernard Lewis, some Christians on the way to the Holy Land were attacked by some Muslims, the key word in both cases being "some."

"The Crusade was a delayed response to the jihad, the holy war for Islam," writes Lewis, "and its purpose was to recover by war what had been lost by war -- to free the holy places of Christendom and open them once again, without impediment, to Christian pilgrimage."

Twenty-first century westerners object to force to recover religiously sacred sites. But history has shown force was used by both Christians and Muslims. Forced renunciation of other beliefs and conversions occurred in Christian lands and on occasion between Christian denominations -- the Inquisition is a case in point. Over time, formerly mainly Christian lands in North Africa (including Egypt and Syria) and Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, and Asia Minor were transformed by way of forced Muslim conversion.

And lest followers of the Enlightenment and atheists feel smug, they too have black marks on their belief system, thanks to fellow travellers who were zealots.

As historian Paul Johnson has written on the revolutionary excesses of France, "the attempt to abolish Christianity and substitute a cult of reason" was accompanied by "terror, destruction of churches and religious colleges and the murder of the clergy."

Similarly, in the 20th century, tyrants possessed of atheistic fervour launched what can accurately be called holy wars of their own and on their own peoples: Vladimir Lenin on dissidents of any kind, Josef Stalin on Ukrainians among others, and Mao Tse-Tung on despised economic classes.

There are reformers and those of tolerance and goodwill in each of the above-named varieties. To name but a few: Mother Theresa in Christianity; Islam's Hassan Moussam, the imam of Stockholm, who last year supported Britain's expulsion of imams engaged in spreading hate; and plenty of atheists who would never countenance using force against others of differing beliefs.

For those who missed it, Benedict XVI made this subtle point: It is a mistake to believe that violent excesses are always the other guy's fault, or even always our own. There is plenty of blame to spread around.
 
BBG- (& everyone else) my thoughts EXACTLY. if they spent as much energy doing something constructive, and not being offended about every little thing (hey, the truth hurts) then maybe they'd get somewhere.. maybe even evolve into this century. i just love how they get all inflamed like a hornet's nest at every little thing.. someone says "hey you guys sure are violent" and they react in anger by-- hmm, guess what? getting violent. do ya think they can see the irony, even just a little bit??

and to the 'good muslims'-- don't give me your "islam is the religion of peace".. yeah,, you've got a real good track record of that, huh? what i can't figure out is why on earth would you even want to involve yourself in something that is associated with so much fanaticism, extremism, mass psychosis, hatred, suicidal acts, and violence against human civilization? not to mention utter hypocrisy?? why even be a part of that at all.......???

here in modern, ultra-PC america.. we have 'diversity' shoved down our throats at every turn. but i'm not buying it. how would people feel about 'diversity' when one day all your churches start getting converted into mosques? or muslims start taking over your city govt.?
it's easy to be PC when you're the one who's still in control.

sorry, but i will NOT be accepting any kind of religion that treats women the way they do (and where the women accept it) and hates western society as much as they do. i agree 100% that in many ways we are decadent and have many problems. but you don't go around blowing up things and flying airplanes into buildings because of it! how is THAT not the ultimate decadence???
 
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14848884/
...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".
I don't know how well Christians would respond to an equivalent statement about Jesus, perhaps from the Jews? Or from the Muslims? Or Hindus? From a prominient spiritual leader that really does lead a huge number of religious people - and not some extremist, but someone fairly mainstream.
Sunni Muslim leader XYZ spoke on the topic of Christianity today. XYZ is the head of the Sunni church, and opposes terrorism in all forms, and agrees that Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state. In his speech, XYZ cited a Byzantine emperor who said, "Show me just what Jesus brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman."
I think if this was said, Christians would be protesting and demanding an apology. Yeah - the Pope didn't say he agreed with what he quoted, but neither did he say he disagreed at all - which leaves the Muslims with only the fact that out of the centuries, he chose that quote to bring forward - I know how I'd interpret something like that myself!

And - I'm not seeing much in the line of violent protests here - strange considering the bit with the comic was such a big deal - but I think they learned something there.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
165
Guests online
2,611
Total visitors
2,776

Forum statistics

Threads
590,041
Messages
17,929,270
Members
228,044
Latest member
Bosie
Back
Top