The Pope wrote:"The emperor comes to speak about the issue of jihad, holy war," the pope said. "He said, I quote, '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.' "
Clearly aware of the sensitivity of the issue, Benedict added, "I quote," twice before pronouncing the phrases on Islam and described them as "brusque," while neither explicitly agreeing with nor repudiating them.
"The emperor goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable," Benedict said.
"Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul," the pope said, issuing an open invitation to dialogue among cultures.
Seems perfectly reasonable to me, assuming that he's correct and that Islam sees violence and faith as incompatable as well.
Otherwise, this flies in the face of what the Pope, Bush, and you have been saying.
"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." - PJ O'Rourke
_____________
"Men and women range themselves into three classes or orders of intelligence; you can tell the lowest class by their habit of always talking about persons; the next by the fact that their habit is always to converse about things; the highest by their preference for the discussion of ideas." - Charles Stewart
_____________
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." - James Madison
_____________
That's exactly what he's saying. The Pope's trying to begin a dialoge in the hopes of ending religious violence.
"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." - PJ O'Rourke
_____________
"Men and women range themselves into three classes or orders of intelligence; you can tell the lowest class by their habit of always talking about persons; the next by the fact that their habit is always to converse about things; the highest by their preference for the discussion of ideas." - Charles Stewart
_____________
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." - James Madison
_____________
LM: is Islamists so incapable of having a dialogue with non Islamists? should we cower in fear that we somehow offend them at any turn? for a religiong that proffer as so peaceful, why do we need to be on eggshells around them all of the time?
Get this, now many of the Islamic faith, those lovable Clerics of the religion of peace, want the Pope killed, calling all muslims to run to the Pope and have him murdered, murdered due to the Popes quoting some ancient text. Cartoons, pictures, quotes. "Lighten up Fancis" is putting it mildly.
Cowboy: Why you doin' this, Doc?
Doc Holliday: Because Wyatt Earp is my friend.
Cowboy: Friend? Hell, I got lots of friends.
Doc Holliday: ... I don't.
Does anyone else see the irony here? Muslims are offended because they think that the Pope is calling Islam a religion of violence, so they're blowing up churches and threatening to kill the Pope to prove him wrong.
Honestly, it's getting to the point that you can't even say the word "Mohammed" without triggering an outburst.
"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." - PJ O'Rourke
_____________
"Men and women range themselves into three classes or orders of intelligence; you can tell the lowest class by their habit of always talking about persons; the next by the fact that their habit is always to converse about things; the highest by their preference for the discussion of ideas." - Charles Stewart
_____________
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." - James Madison
_____________
So it's pretty clear that Benedict XVI's quotation of the ancient dialogue was taken out of context. Of course, the radicalist response is pretty ridiculous, but did he really expect anything less? Seems like a PR mishap to me. He's the pope, for God's sake, a comment like that he should have known would have made headlines. (He is indeed no John Paul II.)
dennis,
is Islamists so incapable of having a dialogue with non Islamists?
Are radical fundamentalists capable of having a dialogue with moderates? Hell no. That's what fundamentalism is, in any religion.
for a religiong that proffer as so peaceful, why do we need to be on eggshells around them all of the time?
I guess I'll say it again. There is no such thing as a fundamentally peaceful religion. Or a fundamentally violent religion. Radical Islam is using the Islamic faith to justify atrocious violence. Which means Islam is not capable of being fundamentally peaceful. To say a religion is "peaceful" or "violent" is a gross oversimplification. The fact that the Islamic faith, that does indeed preach so much peace can give way to such violence, is testament to that.
Cowboy: Why you doin' this, Doc?
Doc Holliday: Because Wyatt Earp is my friend.
Cowboy: Friend? Hell, I got lots of friends.
Doc Holliday: ... I don't.
thank you.
LM: as Cail has stated, it isn't Christians calling for the death of anyone. it isn't Jews calling for the death of anyone. or Buddhists, Taoists, Mormons, Agnostics, Atheists, Calvinists, Pilgrims, Patrons or Saints. it is the Islamists. and the response seems to underscore that quite squarely. I pray that they don't go ahead and kill a man for his words... how much longer can you defend them?
Are you denying the existence of fundamentalism in other religions? And that fundamentalism in every religion has seen the rise of bloody and atrocious holy warfare? I suppose that your point is that here and now Islam is the fundamentalist and violent religion of our day. But had we lived in Inquisition Spain, I would probably be begging the same question that you beg of me: Why are you defending them? And you would rightly reply that religious history is cyclical, and that Christianity would enter into an age where Inquisitions were reprehensible. I pray that Islam enters into an age where what the Prophet called the Lower Jihad, or holy war, becomes just as reprehensible.
No one's denying it LM, all we're saying is that no other religion is taking to the streets and calling for death any time someone looks at them funny.
"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." - PJ O'Rourke
_____________
"Men and women range themselves into three classes or orders of intelligence; you can tell the lowest class by their habit of always talking about persons; the next by the fact that their habit is always to converse about things; the highest by their preference for the discussion of ideas." - Charles Stewart
_____________
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." - James Madison
_____________
I can't answer that definitively, but I'm inclined to say yes, given the way that information (like access to the internet) is controlled.
"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." - PJ O'Rourke
_____________
"Men and women range themselves into three classes or orders of intelligence; you can tell the lowest class by their habit of always talking about persons; the next by the fact that their habit is always to converse about things; the highest by their preference for the discussion of ideas." - Charles Stewart
_____________
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." - James Madison
_____________
Mhoram wrote:I guess I'll say it again. There is no such thing as a fundamentally peaceful religion. Or a fundamentally violent religion.
You say this as if it were axiomatic. Can you explain to me why the core teachings of a religion, any religion, could not possibly be either peaceful or violent? What shared characteristics of religion as whole preclude this?
Mhoram wrote:But had we lived in Inquisition Spain, I would probably be begging the same question that you beg of me: Why are you defending them? And you would rightly reply that religious history is cyclical, and that Christianity would enter into an age where Inquisitions were reprehensible.
Are you not assuming that Dennis would be defending the atrocities? Maybe Dennis, instead of making a pronouncement that he would have no evidence to back up, has the moral fiber and intelligence to recognize that these acts committed in the name of christianity were reprehensible and would thus reply "I do not defend these acts nor these people who commit them".
Mhoram wrote:I understand. But is Islam to blame for the socioeconomic problems that plague the Middle East?
Yes. There are certainly other contributing factors but an insular religion is certainly chief among them.
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.John Stuart Mill
I have come out against faults in the Catholic church. I have argued that Cardinal Law needed to be removed for his part of the sex abuse cases. I have argued that the church needs to be more proactive than it already is regarding social justice. I have condemned the Inquisition. and I have called for reform where it is needed. but finding faults in Christianity does not excuse Islam from the path it is on. and I would argue that the church sought reform and that Islam is shutting down any discussion of moderation.
an excellent editorial from the Sunday Times...
Why the Pope was right
William Rees-Mogg
Benedict did give offence — but no great religion should be immune from difficult questions JOURNALISTS SHOULD NOT criticise Pope Benedict XVI for his lecture at Regensburg. He has done only what every sub-editor on the Daily Mail does every day. Confronted with a long and closely written text, he inserted a lively quote to draw attention to the argument. We all do it. Sometimes the quote causes trouble, but more often it opens up an argument that is needed. The question is not whether the quotation from the Byzantine emperor Manuel II Palaeologus is offensive: it is. The question is whether the emperor is justified in what he said. His main thrust was at least partly justified. There is a real problem about the teaching of the Koran on violence against the infidel. That existed in the 14th century, and was demonstrated on 9/11, 2001. There is every reason to discuss it. I am more afraid of silence than offence. The Pope’s actual quotation is not just a medieval point of view. It is a common modern view; even if it seldom reaches print; it can certainly be found on the internet. “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and then you shall find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.” Is it true that the Koran contains such a command, and has it influenced modern terrorists? The answers, unfortunately, are “yes” and “yes”. The so-called Sword Verse from Chapter 9 must have been in the emperor’s mind: “So when the sacred months have passed away, Then slay the idolaters wherever you find them. “And take them captive and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in every ambush.” This does shock many Muslims: extremists are angered by the implied criticism of those who quote it, while moderates who cannot disavow the terms of the Koran prefer more evasive interpretations. The shock it creates shows the importance of the doctrine. One man who does not question the meaning of the verse is Osama bin Laden. His attitude is discussed at some length in Chapter 14 of an excellent new book, The Qur’an, a Biography, by Bruce Lawrence, who is the Professor of Islamic Studies at Duke University, North Carolina. Lawrence observes the use of this verse as a central argument for jihad in Bin Laden’s manifesto in 1996; that was a declaration of war against native and foreign infidels. Lawrence makes several relevant points. Bin Laden selects only those verses that fit his message, and then cites them exclusively for his own purposes. He ignores both their original context and also the variety of historical differences between committed Muslims about how to apply their dicta. He collapses the broad spectrum of Koranic teaching into a double requirement: first to believe; and then to fight. Lawrence also draws attention to the qualifications that surround the Sword Verse; particularly that those infidels who repent should be allowed to go free: “For God is most forgiving; most merciful.” It is impossible to reconcile the consistent Koranic teaching that God is most merciful with suicide bombing, which is indiscriminate and murders faithfuls and infidels alike. It is a mistake to think that all the major religions are identical: they have real differences of doctrine that have real impacts on human society. What is true, however, is that no religion shall survive for more than a generation or two unless it has a substantial element of truth in it. The diabolical cult of Nazism lasted for only one generation. It is natural for Christians of different denominations to love what they have in common without ceasing to be aware of their differences. A Christian should also rejoice in the positive spiritual values of the other major religions. It is natural for a Christian to feel enriched by Judaism, which was the religion of Jesus; or by Platonism, the philosophy of the opening chapter of St John’s Gospel and of St Augustine. Yet Christians also find spiritual truths in Buddhism, Confucianism, Daoism, Hinduism, Sikhism and Islam itself. There is a significant link between aspects of Islamic Sufi mysticism and the Christian mystical tradition. When one lists these religions it becomes obvious that there are two problems: violence and the influence of reason, both of which Pope Benedict identified in his lecture. Violence is a fault from which no major religion has historically been free. St Patrick’s conversion of Ireland is sometimes given as a unique example of the conversion of a nation without the loss of a single life. It is one of the great scandals that so many persecutions have taken place in the name of Jesus. This has been more or less true of all the great religions: human beings are the most savage of beasts, and they will kill each other in any cause, however noble. Yet nowadays Islam is the only major religion in which violence is a serious doctrinal issue. It is true that tribalised Roman Catholics and Protestants in Ireland have only recently stopped killing each other and vengeful Sikhs assassinated Indira Gandhi in India, but neither the Catholic nor the Protestant churches believe in terror; nor do the Sikhs. A significant proportion of the Islamic community does believe that suicide bombers are martyrs carrying out a religious duty. Suicide bombing causes Islamophobia. There are varying degrees of authority and uniformity in different religions; rather low in most cases. This pluralism has its own virtues, but in Islam they are outweighed by the disadvantages. Those imams who preach al-Qaeda’s view of the duty of jihad are not required to answer to any authority, even the authority of reason. Islam has only partially experienced the modern process of enlightenment and reform, which was, after all, resisted by a number of pre-Vatican II Popes. Pope Benedict will have done Islam a service if he has started a debate within Islam and between Islam and the critics.
Can you explain to me why the core teachings of a religion, any religion, could not possibly be either peaceful or violent?
If a religion can be so easily manipulated and misused, and have followers that singlehandedly define, change, or heavily impact its theology, then it cannot be intrinsically peaceful. And vice versa. In other words, in the case of Islam, it can be perceived to preach peace or violence. Is not a religious message ambiguous, subjective even? Who are you or I to say how to interpret a passage? (I wonder what Middle Ages Catholicism would say to that?) Who are you or I to divide religions up into the "peaceful" and the "violent" ones?
Maybe Dennis, instead of making a pronouncement that he would have no evidence to back up, has the moral fiber and intelligence to recognize that these acts committed in the name of christianity were reprehensible and would thus reply "I do not defend these acts nor these people who commit them".
Heh. What a backhand. Sure, he could say that.
There are certainly other contributing factors but an insular religion is certainly chief among them.
Elaborate?
dennis,
but finding faults in Christianity does not excuse Islam from the path it is on. and I would argue that the church sought reform and that Islam is shutting down any discussion of moderation.
I'm not excusing radical Islamicists. I'm defending Islam itself, which you have continually attacked. I understand that you condemn past atrocities committed by the Church, and that is certainly admirable, but the Church has not always been open to reform. Islam currently is dominated by those completely opposed to reform. Christianity has been in that position many times.
