0
   

Pope launches scathing attack on Islam

 
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Sep, 2006 10:41 am
I'm a Catholic and German.

I know a bit about history since I've studied that at university.

We can talk about that.


You seem to be in advantage with your deep knowledge about Muslims - you've got me there.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Sep, 2006 10:44 am
Forgive and move on, NU says

Ary Hermawan, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta

Nadhlatul Ulama chairman Hasyim Muzadi called on Indonesian Muslims on Monday to accept Pope Benedict XVI's apology for offending Muslims, saying it was "an obligation" according to Islamic teachings.

"As long as it (the Pope's remarks) was made out of negligence, we are obliged to accept the apology," Hasyim said on the sidelines of a religious leaders conference at the NU office.

The conference, held by the Indonesian Conference for Religion and Peace (ICRP), was also addressed by Cardinal Julius Darmaatmadja of the Indonesian Bishops Conference (KWI).

Hasyim said the regret was "enough" and further resentment from the Muslims would only justify the pope's statement. "If the rage continues, perhaps what the pope said is true," he said.

The pope in his address at the University of Regensburg in Bavaria, Germany, quoted a medieval text linking Islam with violence.

Quoting a 14th century Christian, Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus, the pope said everything the Prophet Muhammad brought was evil, "such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

The Vatican issued a formal statement Saturday, announcing the Pope's "sincere regret" over his remarks and the reactions of the Muslims around the world. The pope stressed Sunday that the medieval quotes he used in his speech address did not reflect his personal views. The speech was about the importance of reason, and not violence, in one's faith -- something he said many Christian and Muslim scholars agreed on.

In the conference, the KWI made a formal statement of apology to Muslims here for the pope's remark. The church said it shared the concerns of Muslims, who thought their prophet was belittled or their God blasphemed.

"I hope this incident does not damage the religious harmony we have tried to build all this time," the statement said, "and the act of forgiving each other will be the basis for better dialog in our coexistence."

Hasyim said the relationship between Islam and the Vatican here was good and would not be destroyed in a few days, although he admitted that the statement had caused tensions between the two faiths.

"The damage might have been done ... but it is regretted in the hope that it will not happen again," Cardinal Julius said. The incident taught a good lesson; that one should be extra careful when speaking about religion and holy books.

There are about six million Catholics in the country.

Speaking at the Non-Aligned Movement summit, in Havana, Cuba, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono said he hoped the pope's apology would end the global outcry among Muslims.

He also praised Indonesia's religious leaders such as Hasyim, Muhammadiyah chairman Din Syamsudin and popular preacher Abdullah Gymnastiar, who he said had responded to the Pope's remarks "wisely".

"I would like to express my gratitude and appreciation to the ulema in Indonesia, who have urged their communities to refrain (from committing violence) and told them there would be a good end to the problem," he told Antara.

Meanwhile, Islamic Defenders Front members rallied in front of the Vatican embassy building Monday, demanding the pope apologize "directly" to Muslims.

"He has only expressed his regret, but he has not yet apologized," the hardline group's spokesman, Umar Nawawi, said.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Sep, 2006 10:48 am
snood wrote:
kickycan wrote:
snood wrote:
kickycan wrote:
And you're a funny guy, in your...oh wait, no, you aren't. You're just some guy with a big chip on his shoulder.

And you're a racist.


This post of mine contains nothing of substance. It is merely a transparent attempt to get the last word. It has no point, no saving grace. It is simply to one-up the previous post. so there. Nyah.


Why should mine have a point, when yours obviously doesn't, except to make yourself feel like you're a big tough guy?

I responded to your charge of racism and you ignored it, because you obviously don't know what the f*ck you're talking about.

Nyah.


Hey genius - you know my last post, where I was saying "this post doesn't have a point"? I was talking about my own post - not yours. Your pointy-headed idea of humor doesn't get irony, huh?

and you sure look stupid, with your smoking cowboy avatar, and your yee-haw ethos, saying someone else is trying to act tough. double nyah.


First of all, you have mischaracterized and misread virtually every post of mine that you have ever responded to, so for me to misread one of yours makes me about twenty behind you, and highly unlikely to catch up, given the thickheadedness that you've shown so far.

And I noticed that once again you decided not to make any statement about my comment that you, in your infinite wisdom of all things race-related, have deemed racist. I guess you see how stupid you were being then.

But the best part of your post is when you attacked my avatar. I see now that you aren't even really mad at me, but are actually mad at my avatar.

That's just stupid. But it made me laugh, so thanks, buddy!
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Sep, 2006 11:15 am
Walter Hinteler wrote:
RexRed wrote:
The English translation is quite sufficient to get the point.


Might be, I'm no Anglo-German liguist who could discuss this. (Although I truely believe that listening to an academic speech in German gives a different result than reading the English version ... which even isn't the actual speech translated but a script.)

But woiyo asked why he should read it all.
0 Replies
 
chiso
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Sep, 2006 11:36 am
Sorry I've missed this whole thread...

Muslims chanting death to America, death to Israel, death to the West, burning crosses, burning flags, murdering a non-muslim for being a non-muslim. Where's the fuc king news?

If appears to me they're carrying on as usual, as if the Pope never said anything. Big freakin deal!
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Sep, 2006 05:30 pm
Quote:
Church experts say Pope is 'unrepentant'
19.09.06

Pope Benedict XVI has been on the defensive over the past 24 hours, apologising for the misinterpretation of his speech, the violent reaction to it and has said that the words he quoted did not reflect his own opinion.

But today Church experts have claimed that, far from having made a mistake, it is extremely unlikely that the Pope would have inflamed the feelings of so many Muslims without realising what he was doing.

The Pope on Sunday said he was deeply sorry Muslims had been offended by his use of a mediaeval quotation on Islam and violence, but his words failed to quell the fury of some Islamic groups demanding a full apology.

In the speech, the Pope referred to criticism of the Prophet Mohammad by 14th century Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus. The emperor said everything the Prophet Mohammad brought was evil "such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached".

Marco Politi, Vatican Expert at La Republicca newspaper, begs to differ. He wrote: "The debacle into which the Holy See has fallen after [the Pope's] speech at the University of Regensburg ... is much more than an accident of communication."

He went on to add that the speech had set back a quarter of a century of efforts by his predecessor John Paul II to improve ties with Islam: "The unhappy anti-Mohammed quotation, followed by the violent reaction of the Islamic world and the bitter indignation of moderate European Muslims, has brought violently to light the rupture completed by the Pope with the strategy conducted for more than two decades with success by John Paul II."

The Pope on Sunday said the quotation did not represent his personal views. But the use of the quotation at all was seen by some Muslims as deeply offensive and some Church experts warned of a breakdown in relations with Islam.

Writing in the Turin newspaper La Stampa, Gian Enrico Rusconi, a professor at Turin University, said the consequences of the speech "signal an irreversible break not only in relations between Islam and the Catholic Church but also of the very image of the Pope in the West."

John Paul, who died last year, was the first Pope to visit a mosque. He travelled to a number of predominantly Muslim countries and welcomed a string of Islamic religious and political leaders to the Vatican during his 27-year-long papacy.

Pope Benedict, however, has indicated that he would not be following his predecessor's example. Politi said: "At his inaugural mass as Pope, Benedict XVI cut out any reference to a fraternal relationship" with Islam.

Last February, Benedict removed the president of the Vatican department for dialogue with Islam and merged it with the Vatican's culture ministry. Archbishop Michael Fitzgerald, one of the Church's most experienced hands at dialogue with Muslims, was sent to Cairo in what was widely seen a demotion
.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Sep, 2006 05:43 pm
kickycan wrote:
snood wrote:
kickycan wrote:
snood wrote:
kickycan wrote:
And you're a funny guy, in your...oh wait, no, you aren't. You're just some guy with a big chip on his shoulder.

And you're a racist.


This post of mine contains nothing of substance. It is merely a transparent attempt to get the last word. It has no point, no saving grace. It is simply to one-up the previous post. so there. Nyah.


Why should mine have a point, when yours obviously doesn't, except to make yourself feel like you're a big tough guy?

I responded to your charge of racism and you ignored it, because you obviously don't know what the f*ck you're talking about.

Nyah.


Hey genius - you know my last post, where I was saying "this post doesn't have a point"? I was talking about my own post - not yours. Your pointy-headed idea of humor doesn't get irony, huh?

and you sure look stupid, with your smoking cowboy avatar, and your yee-haw ethos, saying someone else is trying to act tough. double nyah.


First of all, you have mischaracterized and misread virtually every post of mine that you have ever responded to, so for me to misread one of yours makes me about twenty behind you, and highly unlikely to catch up, given the thickheadedness that you've shown so far.

And I noticed that once again you decided not to make any statement about my comment that you, in your infinite wisdom of all things race-related, have deemed racist. I guess you see how stupid you were being then.

But the best part of your post is when you attacked my avatar. I see now that you aren't even really mad at me, but are actually mad at my avatar.

That's just stupid. But it made me laugh, so thanks, buddy!


The dimwitted are often easily amused. But glad to help the handicapped.
0 Replies
 
SierraSong
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Sep, 2006 05:50 pm
chiso wrote:
Sorry I've missed this whole thread...

Muslims chanting death to America, death to Israel, death to the West, burning crosses, burning flags, murdering a non-muslim for being a non-muslim. Where's the fuc king news?

If appears to me they're carrying on as usual, as if the Pope never said anything. Big freakin deal!


Yep. Same old, same old.

Muslim (yawn) outrage.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Sep, 2006 06:03 pm
Thanks for the link, xingu.

I have various vested interests here. I was a long time ago Catholic of strong fervence at one point, and now am very much not, but cut my theological eye teeth on Ratzinger and Kung (or knocked myself out).

I'm sympathetic to the non-radical muslims, at the same time I fear the extremists, just about as much as I fear our extremists.

I gotta say (lord why don't you buy me a Mercedes-Benz) we don't need increased inflammatory communication.

Ratzinger is surely a master of politics within the vatican. I'm not sure he projected escalating violence from his speech, but he's not a stupid fellow, he must have conjectured note would be taken. He knows who he is, he worked to get there. I like to think he didn't associate a huge portion of the world as evil, but was only tracking history. I can't tell though.

John Paul II, Wojytla, another fella I've had qualms about, is looking saner by the minute..

I've a personal concern. I happen to love Rome, and I don't want to see it pay the price for some kind of saber rattling. I'm not sure it was saber rattling, but there is a tinge of it. I see the pope's speech, academic exercise as it was, as a kind of bravado from within a tunnel of vision.

I'm not in favor of the offended being violent. I fear that.

I'm for discourse, but would like to see it work both ways. Tough to get to with prescriptive folks on both sides.
0 Replies
 
SierraSong
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Sep, 2006 06:07 pm
I think people who are placing blame on the Pope probably had a bone to pick with him in the first place.

He apologized. The radical Muslims, the moderate Muslims and everyone else needs to get over it.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Sep, 2006 06:34 pm
snood wrote:
kickycan wrote:
snood wrote:
kickycan wrote:
snood wrote:
kickycan wrote:
And you're a funny guy, in your...oh wait, no, you aren't. You're just some guy with a big chip on his shoulder.

And you're a racist.


This post of mine contains nothing of substance. It is merely a transparent attempt to get the last word. It has no point, no saving grace. It is simply to one-up the previous post. so there. Nyah.


Why should mine have a point, when yours obviously doesn't, except to make yourself feel like you're a big tough guy?

I responded to your charge of racism and you ignored it, because you obviously don't know what the f*ck you're talking about.

Nyah.


Hey genius - you know my last post, where I was saying "this post doesn't have a point"? I was talking about my own post - not yours. Your pointy-headed idea of humor doesn't get irony, huh?

and you sure look stupid, with your smoking cowboy avatar, and your yee-haw ethos, saying someone else is trying to act tough. double nyah.


First of all, you have mischaracterized and misread virtually every post of mine that you have ever responded to, so for me to misread one of yours makes me about twenty behind you, and highly unlikely to catch up, given the thickheadedness that you've shown so far.

And I noticed that once again you decided not to make any statement about my comment that you, in your infinite wisdom of all things race-related, have deemed racist. I guess you see how stupid you were being then.

But the best part of your post is when you attacked my avatar. I see now that you aren't even really mad at me, but are actually mad at my avatar.

That's just stupid. But it made me laugh, so thanks, buddy!


The dimwitted are often easily amused. But glad to help the handicapped.


I notice that once again you have decided not to defend your idiotic statement that I'm a racist. Your silence on that subject speaks volumes. I would like an apology for that besmirchment of my character now, please. I would have thought you'd have done so already, you being so upstanding and noble and all.

<holding breath, waiting for Snood's heartfelt apology>
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Sep, 2006 06:48 pm
It is remarkable that the West, after so many insults and injuries at the hands of Islamist fanatics, is so inhibited by a religion whse leaders have issued calls (and rewards) for the murder of a prominent novelist; demanded that Western democracies suspend our traditional freedom of expression (and the press) when they believe their beliefs have been insulted; openly called for violent actions against Western governments and people; and practiced rather extreme forms of religious intolerance themselves in lands they control. This is not an institution deserving of admiration or respect. It has declared its enmity for the West quite openly. It remains to be seen whether this radical expression of Islam will remain dominant in the Moslem world. However, while it lasts it is indeed our enemy.
0 Replies
 
sunlover
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Sep, 2006 06:48 pm
The pope didn't apologize to Muslims for his offensive comments against their religion, he apologized to the rest of the world because the Muslims reacted violently to his remarks. He has not yet addressed the religion of Islam directly, and could do just that.
0 Replies
 
paull
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Sep, 2006 11:08 pm
Quote:
Using the words, "Jihad" and "holy war" in his lecture, the Pope quoted criticisms of the Prophet Mohammed by a 14th century Byzantine Christian emperor, Manuel II.


Good for him. Spades be spades, and calling them such is not a crime.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Sep, 2006 12:29 am
sunlover wrote:
The pope didn't apologize to Muslims for his offensive comments against their religion, he apologized to the rest of the world because the Muslims reacted violently to his remarks. He has not yet addressed the religion of Islam directly, and could do just that.

Which offensive comments? I suspect you haven't read the pope's lecture. Here is the paragraph that set off all the anger:
    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 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, a brusqueness which leaves us astounded, 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 (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...".

Source

Benedict cites a medieval Christian comment on Islam. He makes clear he did not share the commenters opinion. He notes that the comment is overbroad in making its accusations "[w]ithout descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels". The pope also doesn't like the tone of the comment either. He calls it "a startling brusqueness, a brusqueness which leaves us astounded". There can be no doubt that Benedict did not agree with the source that he cited in this paragraph.

Exactly what part of the pope's speech do you think he should apologize for?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Sep, 2006 12:37 am
Adding to Thomas's question: and why shuld the Pope apologize for something, a member of a different church (Greek Orthodox) said ... centuries ago?
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Sep, 2006 01:01 am
I wouldn't apologize for the ill contrived reactions of others.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Sep, 2006 05:01 am
You called me a racist as well, Kickycan. And I'm no more noble and upstanding than anyone else.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Sep, 2006 06:10 am
Yes, I did, but when I did it, I was trying to show you how it feels when someone negatively labels you without any evidence to back it up. You did it because you meant it, based on an assumption.

<still waiting for snood to show some integrity and apologize>
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Sep, 2006 06:31 am
Its not Islam thats the enemy. Its the violent minority who use political islam as justification for waging jihad against us. Our response has been to drop bombs on them, when the real battle should be for men's minds.

Why do we do this, when its obvious it only drives more muslims into the arms of the extremists?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/18/2024 at 06:45:46