The Pope speaks: Muhammad had brought the world only "evil and inhuman" things. !!!!!
- Thread starter vincent
- Start date
Destroyer said:
The Pope is the leader of the Catholic Church.
Wasn't the Pope just quoting someone? Why is everyone getting so pissed off at him when those words aren't even from him?
The reason for even quoting the Byzantine Emperor
Remember that Daily Show segment on how news media adds question marks to the end of volatile statements in order to make them acceptable? It called Fox News 'cocksuckers' but in the form of a question and then said therefore that ought to be alright since they aren't SAYING it, they're ASKING it.
Likewise, the Pope simply quoted someone else.
I quote (I repeat, I simply QUOTE) "Christians eat babies". I don't mean any offense by this statement, this is not my statement nor my view. I am just quoting someone who might know a thing or two about something going on today.
Regarding this quote, the Pope said:
Um. Yeah. If you know there was a state of war where the capital of the Byzantine Empire was under threat of being conquered... you can probably deduce the Byzantine Emperor would have no nice, unbiased words for Islam. Why then would you quote this guy out of everyone?
The only reason might be to display how BIASED people become in times of war, and relate this to all statements coming out of media today. But that's not what he did.
The part he wanted to quote:
which was rather pointless seeing as how it wasn't really a part of the quote that he needed. :no: there'd be no other reason except to say that he agrees that Islam is an example of being unreasonable.
Ironic then that reason is cited as the 'Reason for quoting the Byzantine Emperor', when in fact there was no real reason or rationality in such a decision. Thank you Pope for showing that you yourself are a perpetrator of this 'irrationality' menace.
The actual message of the statement itself
Frankly, its bullshit. The Pope is deluded if he believes Christianity shares a strong connection with Greek philosophy and reason. Its more like circumstantial. You guys are all descendants of the barbarians that destroyed Greco-Roman Civilization and are now living in their continent. So its to be expected they'd look into old Greek works and then be inspired with them to an extent.
That extent however, is nowhere near the extent to which early Islamic philosophy incorporated Greek reasoning or logic with regards to religious concepts in their own work. Nearly every academic source out there will substantiate how incredibly influenced the Arabs were by Greek civilization. They loved it.
In Islamic philosophy, logic played an important role. Islamic law placed importance on formulating standards of argument, which gave rise to a novel approach to logic in Kalam, but this approach was displaced by ideas from Greek philosophy with the rise of the Mutazilite philosophers, who valued highly Aristotle's Organon. The work of Greek-influenced Islamic philosophers were crucial in the reception of Greek logic in medieval Europe, and the commentaries on the Organon by Averroes (Ibn Rushd) played a central role in the subsequent flowering of medieval European logic.
Despite the logical sophistication of Al-Ghazali, the rise of the Asharite school slowly suffocated original work on logic in the Islamic world.
The key thing there is where this all ended for Islamic civilization, that link to the Ashari school of thought. Though the Ashari school was born out of Greek logic. Irony.
That is what the Pope was talking about (what the Asharites believe, what has come to predominate much of Islamic thought...btw, the Ahsari school showed up 4-5 centuries after Muhammad(pbuh)). I don't even need to say anything cuz the Wikipedia article says everything:
In contrast to the Mutazilite school of Greek-inspired theologians, the Asharite view was that comprehension of unique nature and characteristics of God were beyond human capability. And that, while man had free will, he had no power to create anything. It was an ignorance-based view which did not assume that human reason could discern morality
Despite being named for Ashari, the most influential work of this school's thought was "The Incoherence of the Philosophers", by the Persian polymath Al-Ghazali (d. 1111). He laid the groundwork to "shut the door of ijtihad" in the subsequent centuries in all Sunni Muslim state. This is one of the most influential works ever produced. Ibn Rushd (Averroes), a rationalist, famously responded that "to say that philosophers are incoherent is itself to make an incoherent statement." and even wrote a book "The Incoherence of the Incoherence" to refute Al-Ghazali's views, though the work was not well received in the Muslim community.
I am not a fan of Al-Ghazali's work, but I believe the influence of the Asharite school was absolutely necessary for the overall growth and development of Islamic philosophy. Even if we don't see this for a long while yet.
What Al-Ghazali said in his book, The Incoherence of the Philosophers:
Whereas Western Civilization eventually completely marginalized traditional Christianity when faced with the same questions (and now there's a backlash in the form of Evangelicism), Islam would never be able to succumb to such a fate. As soon as Islam tilts in one direction or the other, societal upheaval marked by a transitional period akin to the Dark Ages would occur. So again, its ironic the Pope is saying this. This is what robbed his Papacy of power to begin with.
Now, there are several issues with this Neoplatonic Islamic Philosophy vs. Asharite Islamic Philosophy
1) The Asharites rightly pointed out flaws in the Mutazilite way of thinking as outlined above in Al-Ghazali's book.
2) The Asharites however, came to no real good conclusions of their own. Their conclusion to trust ethics over reason was pretty elementary.
3) The Asharites underestimated the power of reason. The simple reason that knocks out most of their assertions in that list is simply Free Will itself. God cannot influence humans to the point where they are incapable of making a choice (Free Will would no longer be Free). That is the reason behind why reason falls short in certain subjects related to God. So yes, they were right that reason cannot tackle God... but not entirely.
4) Ironically, the Asharites used the neoplatonic spirit of inquiry to address the Mutazilite thought. Were it not for reason, they could not reasonably knock out their trust in reason. See where its all beginning to fall apart? You cannot seperate reason from humanity, it is a part of us. There is plenty of reason to mistrust our shortcomings in reason as humans, but that is not to say God Himself doesn't follow a Superior Reason. Reason is an idea, like Good or Evil. Even if humans were not around, God would still be Good for instance.
5) Likewise, they were correct in using faith to discern morality over reason. But the way they 'fixed' things only ended up fixing things in the short-term and gave Islamic civilization much long-term damage.
This debate raged on for centuries.
The future of Islamic philosophy is the union of faith and reason. It will inevitably be done, and the Ashari school was an important component of it. Hopefully making the centuries of trouble worth it in the end.
Cuz in Islamic philosophy, the realization has to be that Faith and Logic are made of the same stuff in the end. The are both states or phases of reality. They co-exist like how ice and water co-exist at zero centigrade, but are both h2o (h2o correlating with reality). According to the faithful, Logic is the manifestation in the physical world of the metaphysical idea of Faith. And yet, according to the logists, Faith is also a form or even system of Logic. The reason they can translate into one another is the same reason Al-Ghazali had beefs with the Mutazilites. A human being's existence is a subjective one, due to the nature of Free Will.
"God turns you from one feeling to another and teaches by means of opposites, so that you will have two wings to fly, not one."
-Rumi
The problem was that Al-Ghazali and Ibn Rushd assumed they had a mastery of reason and faith. Its not that reason fails, its that Ibn Rushd's use of reason came up short. Its not that faith failed. Its that Al-Ghazali's practice of it came up short. For instance, Ibn Rushd's idea of 'two approaches to one truth' which is similar to the Faith-Logic correlary outlined above is perfectly compatible with Al-Ghazali's view of Faith overriding Reason. The reasons for that are a seperate issue, but other scholars such as Ibn Arabi shed some light on the issue of the nature of our reality.
Ibn Rushd: “What kind of solution have you found through divine unveiling and illumination? Is it identical with what you have found through speculative thought?"
Ibn Arabi: "Yes...No. Between the yes and the no, spirits take wing from their matter and necks are separated from their bodies."
Where Ibn Rushd was inquiring about his 'two approaches to one truth' thing, Ibn Arabi was talking about the nature of the two approaches (the metaphysical winds up in the infinite or divine, while the finite approach (our reality) has an end).
Two other philosophers influential in the rise of the Asharite school were:
Note how it says yield the initiative of Western civilization. Not global dominance of civilization, not civilization itself. As has been said before, Islam played a huge role in the development of Western civilization and was poised at several times to essentially become Western civilization. It seems an alien idea, but it was damn near a matter of chance at times that it didn't, and European scholars and historians viewed it likewise.
So uh, yeah. The Pope has no idea what the hell he's talking about. Its as if a person walks down the beach to the sea, and the only conclusion they can come up with is 'there is a drop of water on my finger!' and leaves it at that.
The Pope based his view on Islam on Theodore Khoury who bases his view on a French guy, R. Arnaldez, who based his on Ibn Hazn, an 11th century philosopher from Spain. He ignores other guys from the era like Al-Ghazali, Ibn Rushd, & co. of whom I spoke earlier and picks the guy who restarted the Zahiri school of thought, or 'madhab' in Islam about which Wikipedia says: "In history the Zahiri understanding has been persecuted by those preferring to interpret the texts by their inward meanings; this came to such an extent that many of the scholars of Sunni and Shi'ite religion have labeled the Zahiri school extinct." They believe in a literal interpretation of the Qu'ran. Anyone who knows Arabic should follow literally what they can figure out from the Qur'an themselves. Again, this starts off from a sound idea, in that for most things the Qur'an is clear and sufficient, and the hadith can be consulted and people can figure things out for themselves. But like the other movements (even the Aristotelian or Ashari), it just spiralled out of control within that school and thus wiped itself out. The Pope was talking about an interpretation of Islam that most Muslims in the world have not followed for centuries.
lmfao. the Pope certainly knows this, i'd go so far as to call his entire assertation as that of a bigot.
The Pope said:
This is refuted by a tenet of the Mutazili school of philosophy or Islamic philosophers that were inspired by Greek philosophy, a.k.a. Neoplatonist Islamic Theologians, etc. (which is in accordance with the major Sunni madhabs):
That instantly knocks out everything he just said.
BTW, Murjites were an early school of Islam, in opposition to Kharijites. This is around the first Islamic Civil War (between the fourth Caliph, Hazrat Ali (RA) and Muawiya (RA)). While the big difference was that successorship issue, this manifested itself in fundamental philosophical disagreements. Murjites believed judgement on people was reserved for God alone, and people should not judge each other in this world. The Kharijites were fanatical interpreters of Muhammad(pbuh) believing in all of Islam's principles (which was a good thing), but based on a fanatical idea of character judgement (the part that gave them problems). They didn't like how the Quraysh were given such status under the Ummayad Caliphate, and believed as Muhammad(pbuh) had said, leaders must be picked based on character and virtue (piousness), even if that person were a non-Arab. However in implementing this, they split up into different sub-sects with varying degrees of fanaticism. One declared most other Muslims mushrik, another didn't believe in a particular Surah of the Qur'an for instance, and it all got out of hand. They would wage total war with other Muslims over the slightest difference. The Murjites formed the basis for what became Sunni Islam, but themselves were declared later to be Ahlul-Biddah (people of innovation) and out of Islam by other Sunnis when they started contradicting fundamental tenets of belief. Mutazilites emerged shortly after when the Caliphate expanded rapidly into Europe, they applied logic/reason inspired by Greeks to these above problems. And eventually after some centuries as mentioned before, the Mutazilites too began to lose control over their course, leading to movements and schools like the Ashari, Maturidi, etc. all of which were Sunni and followed the four major madhabs of Hanafi, Maliki, Hanbali, and Shafi. For instance, Ibn Rushd (Averroes) was Maliki, despite going off into practically his own madhab later and spinning off even European movements.
(Interesting to note that the Deobandi school in the subcontinent, which is Sunni-Hunafi, to which the Taliban prescribe, has Mutazili tenets... its that widespread and fundamental to Islam still)
Back to the Pope...in the end it does not matter much, because the papacy itself doesn't really matter. The real power of Christianity and Western civilization today is over in the politics of America and the UK. And its not like his statements reflect the views of Christians. Most Christians probably have the view of medieval peasants when it comes to Muslims, at least the Pope reflected the view of a medievel Emperor
Remember that Daily Show segment on how news media adds question marks to the end of volatile statements in order to make them acceptable? It called Fox News 'cocksuckers' but in the form of a question and then said therefore that ought to be alright since they aren't SAYING it, they're ASKING it.
Likewise, the Pope simply quoted someone else.
I quote (I repeat, I simply QUOTE) "Christians eat babies". I don't mean any offense by this statement, this is not my statement nor my view. I am just quoting someone who might know a thing or two about something going on today.
Regarding this quote, the Pope said:
Um. Yeah. If you know there was a state of war where the capital of the Byzantine Empire was under threat of being conquered... you can probably deduce the Byzantine Emperor would have no nice, unbiased words for Islam. Why then would you quote this guy out of everyone?
The only reason might be to display how BIASED people become in times of war, and relate this to all statements coming out of media today. But that's not what he did.
The part he wanted to quote:
which was rather pointless seeing as how it wasn't really a part of the quote that he needed. :no: there'd be no other reason except to say that he agrees that Islam is an example of being unreasonable.
Ironic then that reason is cited as the 'Reason for quoting the Byzantine Emperor', when in fact there was no real reason or rationality in such a decision. Thank you Pope for showing that you yourself are a perpetrator of this 'irrationality' menace.
The actual message of the statement itself
Frankly, its bullshit. The Pope is deluded if he believes Christianity shares a strong connection with Greek philosophy and reason. Its more like circumstantial. You guys are all descendants of the barbarians that destroyed Greco-Roman Civilization and are now living in their continent. So its to be expected they'd look into old Greek works and then be inspired with them to an extent.
That extent however, is nowhere near the extent to which early Islamic philosophy incorporated Greek reasoning or logic with regards to religious concepts in their own work. Nearly every academic source out there will substantiate how incredibly influenced the Arabs were by Greek civilization. They loved it.
In Islamic philosophy, logic played an important role. Islamic law placed importance on formulating standards of argument, which gave rise to a novel approach to logic in Kalam, but this approach was displaced by ideas from Greek philosophy with the rise of the Mutazilite philosophers, who valued highly Aristotle's Organon. The work of Greek-influenced Islamic philosophers were crucial in the reception of Greek logic in medieval Europe, and the commentaries on the Organon by Averroes (Ibn Rushd) played a central role in the subsequent flowering of medieval European logic.
Despite the logical sophistication of Al-Ghazali, the rise of the Asharite school slowly suffocated original work on logic in the Islamic world.
The key thing there is where this all ended for Islamic civilization, that link to the Ashari school of thought. Though the Ashari school was born out of Greek logic. Irony.
That is what the Pope was talking about (what the Asharites believe, what has come to predominate much of Islamic thought...btw, the Ahsari school showed up 4-5 centuries after Muhammad(pbuh)). I don't even need to say anything cuz the Wikipedia article says everything:
In contrast to the Mutazilite school of Greek-inspired theologians, the Asharite view was that comprehension of unique nature and characteristics of God were beyond human capability. And that, while man had free will, he had no power to create anything. It was an ignorance-based view which did not assume that human reason could discern morality
Despite being named for Ashari, the most influential work of this school's thought was "The Incoherence of the Philosophers", by the Persian polymath Al-Ghazali (d. 1111). He laid the groundwork to "shut the door of ijtihad" in the subsequent centuries in all Sunni Muslim state. This is one of the most influential works ever produced. Ibn Rushd (Averroes), a rationalist, famously responded that "to say that philosophers are incoherent is itself to make an incoherent statement." and even wrote a book "The Incoherence of the Incoherence" to refute Al-Ghazali's views, though the work was not well received in the Muslim community.
I am not a fan of Al-Ghazali's work, but I believe the influence of the Asharite school was absolutely necessary for the overall growth and development of Islamic philosophy. Even if we don't see this for a long while yet.
What Al-Ghazali said in his book, The Incoherence of the Philosophers:
Whereas Western Civilization eventually completely marginalized traditional Christianity when faced with the same questions (and now there's a backlash in the form of Evangelicism), Islam would never be able to succumb to such a fate. As soon as Islam tilts in one direction or the other, societal upheaval marked by a transitional period akin to the Dark Ages would occur. So again, its ironic the Pope is saying this. This is what robbed his Papacy of power to begin with.
Now, there are several issues with this Neoplatonic Islamic Philosophy vs. Asharite Islamic Philosophy
1) The Asharites rightly pointed out flaws in the Mutazilite way of thinking as outlined above in Al-Ghazali's book.
2) The Asharites however, came to no real good conclusions of their own. Their conclusion to trust ethics over reason was pretty elementary.
3) The Asharites underestimated the power of reason. The simple reason that knocks out most of their assertions in that list is simply Free Will itself. God cannot influence humans to the point where they are incapable of making a choice (Free Will would no longer be Free). That is the reason behind why reason falls short in certain subjects related to God. So yes, they were right that reason cannot tackle God... but not entirely.
4) Ironically, the Asharites used the neoplatonic spirit of inquiry to address the Mutazilite thought. Were it not for reason, they could not reasonably knock out their trust in reason. See where its all beginning to fall apart? You cannot seperate reason from humanity, it is a part of us. There is plenty of reason to mistrust our shortcomings in reason as humans, but that is not to say God Himself doesn't follow a Superior Reason. Reason is an idea, like Good or Evil. Even if humans were not around, God would still be Good for instance.
5) Likewise, they were correct in using faith to discern morality over reason. But the way they 'fixed' things only ended up fixing things in the short-term and gave Islamic civilization much long-term damage.
This debate raged on for centuries.
The future of Islamic philosophy is the union of faith and reason. It will inevitably be done, and the Ashari school was an important component of it. Hopefully making the centuries of trouble worth it in the end.
Cuz in Islamic philosophy, the realization has to be that Faith and Logic are made of the same stuff in the end. The are both states or phases of reality. They co-exist like how ice and water co-exist at zero centigrade, but are both h2o (h2o correlating with reality). According to the faithful, Logic is the manifestation in the physical world of the metaphysical idea of Faith. And yet, according to the logists, Faith is also a form or even system of Logic. The reason they can translate into one another is the same reason Al-Ghazali had beefs with the Mutazilites. A human being's existence is a subjective one, due to the nature of Free Will.
"God turns you from one feeling to another and teaches by means of opposites, so that you will have two wings to fly, not one."
-Rumi
The problem was that Al-Ghazali and Ibn Rushd assumed they had a mastery of reason and faith. Its not that reason fails, its that Ibn Rushd's use of reason came up short. Its not that faith failed. Its that Al-Ghazali's practice of it came up short. For instance, Ibn Rushd's idea of 'two approaches to one truth' which is similar to the Faith-Logic correlary outlined above is perfectly compatible with Al-Ghazali's view of Faith overriding Reason. The reasons for that are a seperate issue, but other scholars such as Ibn Arabi shed some light on the issue of the nature of our reality.
Ibn Rushd: “What kind of solution have you found through divine unveiling and illumination? Is it identical with what you have found through speculative thought?"
Ibn Arabi: "Yes...No. Between the yes and the no, spirits take wing from their matter and necks are separated from their bodies."
Where Ibn Rushd was inquiring about his 'two approaches to one truth' thing, Ibn Arabi was talking about the nature of the two approaches (the metaphysical winds up in the infinite or divine, while the finite approach (our reality) has an end).
Two other philosophers influential in the rise of the Asharite school were:
Note how it says yield the initiative of Western civilization. Not global dominance of civilization, not civilization itself. As has been said before, Islam played a huge role in the development of Western civilization and was poised at several times to essentially become Western civilization. It seems an alien idea, but it was damn near a matter of chance at times that it didn't, and European scholars and historians viewed it likewise.
So uh, yeah. The Pope has no idea what the hell he's talking about. Its as if a person walks down the beach to the sea, and the only conclusion they can come up with is 'there is a drop of water on my finger!' and leaves it at that.
The Pope based his view on Islam on Theodore Khoury who bases his view on a French guy, R. Arnaldez, who based his on Ibn Hazn, an 11th century philosopher from Spain. He ignores other guys from the era like Al-Ghazali, Ibn Rushd, & co. of whom I spoke earlier and picks the guy who restarted the Zahiri school of thought, or 'madhab' in Islam about which Wikipedia says: "In history the Zahiri understanding has been persecuted by those preferring to interpret the texts by their inward meanings; this came to such an extent that many of the scholars of Sunni and Shi'ite religion have labeled the Zahiri school extinct." They believe in a literal interpretation of the Qu'ran. Anyone who knows Arabic should follow literally what they can figure out from the Qur'an themselves. Again, this starts off from a sound idea, in that for most things the Qur'an is clear and sufficient, and the hadith can be consulted and people can figure things out for themselves. But like the other movements (even the Aristotelian or Ashari), it just spiralled out of control within that school and thus wiped itself out. The Pope was talking about an interpretation of Islam that most Muslims in the world have not followed for centuries.
lmfao. the Pope certainly knows this, i'd go so far as to call his entire assertation as that of a bigot.
The Pope said:
This is refuted by a tenet of the Mutazili school of philosophy or Islamic philosophers that were inspired by Greek philosophy, a.k.a. Neoplatonist Islamic Theologians, etc. (which is in accordance with the major Sunni madhabs):
That instantly knocks out everything he just said.
BTW, Murjites were an early school of Islam, in opposition to Kharijites. This is around the first Islamic Civil War (between the fourth Caliph, Hazrat Ali (RA) and Muawiya (RA)). While the big difference was that successorship issue, this manifested itself in fundamental philosophical disagreements. Murjites believed judgement on people was reserved for God alone, and people should not judge each other in this world. The Kharijites were fanatical interpreters of Muhammad(pbuh) believing in all of Islam's principles (which was a good thing), but based on a fanatical idea of character judgement (the part that gave them problems). They didn't like how the Quraysh were given such status under the Ummayad Caliphate, and believed as Muhammad(pbuh) had said, leaders must be picked based on character and virtue (piousness), even if that person were a non-Arab. However in implementing this, they split up into different sub-sects with varying degrees of fanaticism. One declared most other Muslims mushrik, another didn't believe in a particular Surah of the Qur'an for instance, and it all got out of hand. They would wage total war with other Muslims over the slightest difference. The Murjites formed the basis for what became Sunni Islam, but themselves were declared later to be Ahlul-Biddah (people of innovation) and out of Islam by other Sunnis when they started contradicting fundamental tenets of belief. Mutazilites emerged shortly after when the Caliphate expanded rapidly into Europe, they applied logic/reason inspired by Greeks to these above problems. And eventually after some centuries as mentioned before, the Mutazilites too began to lose control over their course, leading to movements and schools like the Ashari, Maturidi, etc. all of which were Sunni and followed the four major madhabs of Hanafi, Maliki, Hanbali, and Shafi. For instance, Ibn Rushd (Averroes) was Maliki, despite going off into practically his own madhab later and spinning off even European movements.
(Interesting to note that the Deobandi school in the subcontinent, which is Sunni-Hunafi, to which the Taliban prescribe, has Mutazili tenets... its that widespread and fundamental to Islam still)
Back to the Pope...in the end it does not matter much, because the papacy itself doesn't really matter. The real power of Christianity and Western civilization today is over in the politics of America and the UK. And its not like his statements reflect the views of Christians. Most Christians probably have the view of medieval peasants when it comes to Muslims, at least the Pope reflected the view of a medievel Emperor
Last edited:
vincent28uk said:
Perhaps you should read what he actually did say?
He could have quoted other parts of the Koran which advocate preaching through the sword, but he chose some medieval guy instead.
The main thrust of his speech was whether violence was better than to reason.
I am not a fan of this Pope but in my opinion he was right to differentiate between these particular faiths. It is after all his job, as it is the job of Imams to preach their messages, more often than not the radical ones.
This is not anti any faith but that what is sauce for the goose ought to be sauce for the gander.
samcdkey said:
A Turk previously tried to assassinate a Pope (John Paul ll). ... luckily that Pope lived, and forgave.