Was the Pope's criticism of Islam unfair?

L

Lawdog

Digging up old bones
Registered Senior Member
This was no insult to Islam



The Pope’s widely condemned remarks on Islam are actually enlightened, says andrew brown

Here we go again: angry Muslims are demanding that a Western intellectual apologise for daring to suggest that Islam spreads itself by force.

This time, though, the intellectual is the Pope. In a talk to the faculty of the University of Regensburg – the sort of audience he finds most congenial – Pope Benedict XVI quoted a Byzantine Emperor as condemning Mohammed "with startling brusqueness". Though, the Pope said, the Emperor Michael Paleologos II must have known the Koranic injunction that there should be no compulsion in matters of religion, the Emperor also told a Muslim general, "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."

Taken in context, or at any other time, these remarks would be universally hailed as



Calling this ‘an insult to Islam’ or to the Prophet is an exercise in bullying and stupidity

enlightened. The Pope is claiming that forcible conversion is contrary to God's nature. He goes on to quote more of the Emperor's dialogue: "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..."

Calling this "an insult to Islam" or to the Prophet is simply an exercise in bullying and stupidity. The most surreal sight of all is that of Turkish Muslim officials demanding that Pope Benedict apologise for suggesting that Islam is spread by the sword. For why are Turkey's highest religious officials Muslims? Because, roughly 50 years after the Emperor, besieged in Constantinople, set down his account of these theological discussions, Constantinople fell and became Istanbul.

FIRST POSTED SEPTEMBER 15, 2006

Today's news headlines

Benedict the subtle politician
 
Been gone for a while Lawdog!

Anyway... Islam, Christianity, Judaism... many religions were spread by force... poeple should just get over the facts of history and move on. Why should the things other people did in the past insult you? These Islamists are idiots in my mind... no matter how peaceful anyone says their religion is, its all up to the followers, and some people can be pretty violent by nature. Most religions have committed some types of vioence to get followers. I dont think all have... meaning all those new churches like the Church of Spaghetti Monsterism.
 
Prince_James said:
The Pope is right and the Moslems can go choke on if it they don't like it.
Click to expand...


Muslims are not going anywhere and pope is wrong, we all know that, he quoted some strange and weird emperor who had a converstion with some unknow person etc etc... just like when St.Paul and St.John had those weird and strange dreams about bible... remember? back in the days when they were creating a religion?
 
Provita said:
Been gone for a while Lawdog!

Anyway... Islam, Christianity, Judaism... many religions were spread by force... poeple should just get over the facts of history and move .
Click to expand...

It's too bad many can't just move on. Instead they get too wrapped up in all the dogma and harshness and cruelties that exist in all 3 of the abrahamic faiths.

Anyways, it's almost laughable the way many muslims ,christians and jews are always at each others throat,considering they all essentially follow the same ignorant vision of God...a vision created by men that is...not God itself.
 
Markx:

Actually, the quote was apparently from a well known dialogue betwixt the emperor of Byzantium and a Persian scholar. It was not a case of the "imaginary heebee jeebees". Similarly, even if it was, the fictionalized account spoke enough truth about Islam.
 
It might be said there is but one god and Allah is his name, but Jesus said God is One and Hallowed be his Name. There is a profound difference in which direction the human mind takes these thoughts. Especially the human minds who have been taught not to reason but to follow. Human mind??? Are there other minds?
 
No matter what he said or how he meant it, does that mean that Muslims should go on the warpath over it? Can't anyone state their opinion without someone getting upset about it? ...or go on a terrorist rampage over a few lousy words?

And probably just as bad ...here we are making a big deal about it on sciforums. It's one person's words about his opinion of things in the world. What the fuck is wrong with humans who will let a few words get them upset and angry and willing to kill other people over them? Wow! Things are really, really fucked up, aren't they?

What the fuck is this world coming to, anyway? Geez!

Baron Max
 
..........a few lousy words? ...............a few words get them upset?????????? It might be valuable to recognize the importance of the "word". I'm not a religious nut, but the whole message of Jesus seemed to be about the "word/gnosis" and how that is the one and only connection we have to this quantum state that some call god. It is important and our belief structures are especially powerful. Those who try to control our belief structures are the ones to watch out for. That includes many, the Pope, the Imans, and of course, people like Bush and Castro, haha.
 
Was the Pope's criticism of Islam unfair? No.

Was it a blatant and disgusting case of hypocrisy? Yes.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days
 
Alsophia Theophilos said:
It might be valuable to recognize the importance of the "word".
It is important and our belief structures are especially powerful.
Click to expand...

So you approve of people getting angry at what others say? You understand vast numbers of peope protesting in the streets, burning the speaker(s) in effigy, vowing to take vengence .....all because of a few words? ....an opinion?

Then surely you'll approve of, say, a preemptive strike by Israel against Iran for Iranian remarks about the holocaust? ...and perhaps the US joining that effort with Israel because of Iranian remarks about the US?

Interesting? Do you do as you say, or do you just say things without thinking much about what they mean?

Baron Max
 
Baron, to whom be ye speaking? If it was my comment which you posted with your reply, then I have to admit that I struggle to find any relevance. Approval of anger?? How can you say that I'd "surely approve" anyone else's actions? Who says things without thinking? Maybe you used my post in error.
 
Shh Godless, you aren't supposed to mention God's dark side... He is a pleasant character, honest...

Now please, can we get back to talking about angry muslims and end-times?
 
Provita said:
Been gone for a while Lawdog!

Anyway... Islam, Christianity, Judaism... many religions were spread by force... poeple should just get over the facts of history and move on. Why should the things other people did in the past insult you? These Islamists are idiots in my mind... no matter how peaceful anyone says their religion is, its all up to the followers, and some people can be pretty violent by nature. Most religions have committed some types of vioence to get followers. I dont think all have... meaning all those new churches like the Church of Spaghetti Monsterism.
Click to expand...


As has been pointed out the Pope was quoting rather than expressing a view per se but bearing in mind the history of the Roman Catholic Church, I am sure many would refer to 'glasshouses' and 'stones'.

We do need to inject some facts however into the discussion. Judaism has never been spread by force. In fact Jews were not generally keen to proselytise Gentiles into their faith (and still are not). Jews tend to believe that Judaism belongs to Jews, so this accusation against them is somewhat false.

In terms of the practice of other major religions, both Christianity and Islam have a poor record in this respect although it has to be said that much of the 'christian' bit was to do with political power of the papacy rather than religious zeal per se (not that that excuses it in anyway) and of course you have the Catholic/Protestant problems in post Henry VIII England and other places in Europe after the reformation.

Organised Christianity has however not been involved in such activities now for a very long time so it is an historical evil rather than a present one.

Islam has however practised religious intolerance, forcible conversions and persecution/murder of those not conforming continuallly from Mohammed to the present time (particularly bad areas at present would include Saudi Arabia, Iran, Somalia and Yemen) see http://www.opendoorsuk.org.uk/wwl.php

If we look at what was actually taught by the founders, it is quite clear that Jesus did not intend that people be forced into belief and was against any violent action against people on the basis of religion. No one has ever accused Jesus (or his apostles) of going on a 'holy war' and killing non-believers.

In respect of Mohammed, the message seems very mixed however with some passages suggesting that people should be free to choose their religion (always quoted by the moderates) but with many other passages making it quite clear that forcible conversion on pain of death is quite acceptable and that that is a valid path to the ultimate objective, which is a 100% Islamic world. This may reflect Mohammed's different attitudes to Jews and Christians at different times. Whatever was written, we do know however, as historical fact what Mohammed and his followers actually did and that was to practice forcible conversion on pain of death and to commit mass murder of non muslims. As many people tend to follow practical example rather than what people say, it can be no surprise if large numbers of muslims consider to this day that this is acceptable, since it is precisely what their founder did.

Fortunately of course most muslims in the west do not do this but simply get on with their lives very peacefully. Life in a 'truly' muslim states is though very very different.

Turkey is in a very difficult position. It is desperately trying to reinforce a view that it really is a secular state with freedom of religion and is trying to make its (poor) human rights record look better in order that it can gain EU membership (and thus of course money and trade benefits) but at the same time there are those within it who would wish it to shed Kemel Attaturk's secular constitution and become a 'true' Islamic state. If the latter happened with consequent reduction in human rights, it would of course no longer be eligible for EU membership (this is not to mention the disastrous practical effects on its economy and citizens). One to watch!

In a way Turkey illustrates the problem Islam has in general and which it cannot resolve. Are those living peacefully in the west and (genuinely) espousing Islam as a religion of peace that should co-exist with the modern world (and other religions) correct or is genuine Islam the forms practised in many Islamic states which is essentially totalitarian, barbarous and totally out of step with modern times?




regards,



Gordon.
 
i'd say of all the abrahamic faiths, islam has a track record of being the most tolerant. true, the jews aren't historically violent towards other sects, but that's only because they're too busy being persecuted or exterminated by them. as for the catholic church though, where exactly do they think they get off calling another religion out for being violent. apparently the pope doesn't have access to any history books.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top