[marden]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah

Do Muslims have the right to be offended? Of course.

Is there a legitimate reason for Muslims to be offended? Absolutely.

Should Muslims turn to violence to protest this speech? Absolutely not.

Should Muslims accept Ratzingers explanation and move on? Absolutely.

Should the Western media focus on the Muslims that have both complained in a peaceful way and now accepted Ratzingers explanation or should the focus on the violent protests that are still few? It's up to them based on what image of Muslims they want to portray.

Good post.

[typoon]

NOTHING will quiet Muslim anger until we are ALL converted to Islam or killed.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah

Do Muslims have the right to be offended? Of course.

Is there a legitimate reason for Muslims to be offended? Absolutely.

Should Muslims turn to violence to protest this speech? Absolutely not.

Should Muslims accept Ratzingers explanation and move on? Absolutely.

Should the Western media focus on the Muslims that have both complained in a peaceful way and now accepted Ratzingers explanation or should the focus on the violent protests that are still few? It's up to them based on what image of Muslims they want to portray.

I agree on everything except for the last point. People are protesting, a Nun was killed in Somalia (she was like in her 70's)...An Islamic group is calling for a Jihad against the Church, etc.... now, i dotn mind, people protesting and voicing their opinions...but there are people who are THREATENING others cause of what someone SAID. that in my opinion is unacceptable...and since the "peaceful" muslims wont do anything to stop them... i think its a good idea to cover that idiocy to deter people from going to these hell-holes.

Also, whether you agree with the Pope or not, its your choice, and you are welcome to state your opinion...but you have no right to tell him(or anyone) what he can/cannot say or to force him to apologize for it, or to kill anyone because of what he said(verbally or in print).

Luckily, my religious leader(the Pope) values life and peace more than what some muslims want to make this into, which is why he probably apologized, and im not surprised he took the high road.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by typoon

NOTHING will quiet Muslim anger until we are ALL converted to Islam or killed.

BS.

[yakkiebah]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah

Should the Western media focus on the Muslims that have both complained in a peaceful way and now accepted Ratzingers explanation or should the focus on the violent protests that are still few? It's up to them based on what image of Muslims they want to portray.

Aljazeera isn't part of the Western media and i don't see them reporting about it either. Or maybe you could provide us with a different news source from the middle-east. Also, i'm not sure you're aware of the fact that it's nearly impossible for journalist from the west(or the ME for that matter) to go out and interview anyone they want and report as freely like they can in western countries.

In the west they can but the muslims keep quiet. Out of fear or agreement? I don't think you understand how it works. If nothing happens the media won't report it. Muslims need to do something, be vocal. They are the ones who control the image. Not just the media.

Muslims need to take responsibility instead of shifting the blame constantly.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by yakkiebah

In the west they can but the muslims keep quiet.

BS.

[badidea]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

What's so hard to understand about the anger, when you hear that prophet Muhammad, even if only quoted, has supposedly brought nothing new, but evil and inhuman things?

What's so hard to see that quote in context?
Do you not want to see it in context or do you just have no idea that this quote was taken out of context?
(and I hope you know what a quote is! If not, then search this post for words that are not written by me - hint: they might be from you!)

While the normal protesters find that quote offending, I find the whole speech to be offending. What the pope wanted to reflect upon in that speech was the topic of religion and violence, and his stance was the violence in the name of religion is evil or at least bad and inhuman, and he uses the writing of the byzantine emperor as the basis, and goes on to say that God dislikes violence in his name, because it runs against rationality, and God is nothing but rational, then he goes on taking the interpretation of an islamist (!!) about God, namely that God would be unbound by any human categories, be it rationality, goodness or mercy... thinking that would be the God described in the Quran...

Sorry but you completely misunderstood what Ratzinger was saying!
(I hope either incomplete or false translation of the speech)

What offends me in that speech the most, is not necessarily the quote of the Byzantine-emperor, but the wrong concepts and interpretations about God in the Quran, the shocking ignorance, and the veiled attempt to define the quranic God as irrational and merciless and the catholic God as rational and merciful.

You know what offends me the most!?!
That it now seems that even most moderate muslims can spend more time on protesting against Ratzinger than against radical islamists!
Only once I would love to see thousands on the street and burning a symbolic suicide bomber! Only once!!
It's kind of sad that the only one who accepted Ratzingers explanation so far is Ahmadinedschad! Even though I believe that this is just tactical!

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by badidea

It's kind of sad that the only one who accepted Ratzingers explanation so far is Ahmadinedschad! Even though I believe that this is just tactical!

And the largest Muslim association in Britain. And the largest Muslim association in Germany. And the Imam of the largest Mosque in Italy. And the largest Muslim association in Sweden. And the (although not that big) Muslim association in Iceland. And the most senior Muslim religious figure, Ali Bardakoglu, of Turkey. And the list goes on.

I'm guessing 80-85%, if not more, of big Muslim associations in Europe have accepted his explanation.

[Busemann]

Funny how these thin-skinned people react when they are responsible for and support stuff like this.. I wonder when the Buddhists will get their formal apology

[badidea]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah

And the largest Muslim association in Britain. And the largest Muslim association in Germany. And the Imam of the largest Mosque in Italy. And the largest Muslim association in Sweden. And the (although not that big) Muslim association in Iceland. And the most senior Muslim religious figure, Ali Bardakoglu, of Turkey. And the list goes on.

I'm guessing 80-85%, if not more, of big Muslim associations in Europe have accepted his explanation.

Ok sorry then - I might have missed that!

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by badidea

Ok sorry then - I might have missed that!

No problem. It's not your fault.

But it does highlight very well the last point of my first post in this thread.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by Busemann

Funny how these thin-skinned people react when they are responsible for and support stuff like this.. I wonder when the Buddhists will get their formal apology

CNN.com - World appeals to Taleban to stop destroying statues - March 3, 2001

Saturday's appeal by Pakistan joined similar requests, as well as condemnation, from a growing list of nations, including Islamic countries.

The 22-member Arab League has condemned the Taleban move as a "savage act."

In Tehran, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Assefi condemned the decision.

"Unfortunately, the Taleban's destruction of the statues has cast doubt on the comprehensive views offered by Islamic ideology in the world," he said, according to the official Islamic Republic News Agency. "Clearly, the world's Muslims pin the blame on the rigid-minded Taleban."

Ancient statues are "just a recording of history and don't have any negative impact on Muslims' beliefs," Egypt's chief Muslim cleric Grand Mufti Nasr Farid Wasel was quoted as saying by the London-based Arabic daily Al-Hayat.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

Strangely enough, that's exactly what the islamic fundemantalists are saying about christianity and judaism, that they are violent, and they keep being proved correct by the acts of the US and Israel.

Crazy world.

Taliesin

Tali I like you. I really do. But that was a spin.

NONE of the things America or Israel is doing are doing so in the name of their religion.

[yakkiebah]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah

CNN.com - World appeals to Taleban to stop destroying statues - March 3, 2001

I guess that proves my point about the western media.

[typoon]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah

BS.

Then explain to me why most if not all the major conflicts today are because Muslims can't get along with their neighbors and why they want to destroy the west, hate the catholics and the Jews?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah

BS.

You may not agree with it, but the people that are part of the problem ARE saying this. That NONE of this will stop till the world is Muslim.

This is from their very mouth. So for you to say "BS" is very silly.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Tali I like you. I really do. But that was a spin.

NONE of the things America or Israel is doing are doing so in the name of their religion.

To be fair, he stated that such was the contention of the fundamentalists, and I do not think he places himself in that category.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by typoon

Then explain to me why most if not all the major conflicts today are because Muslims can't get along with their neighbors and why they want to destroy the west, hate the catholics and the Jews?

Because you don't know the basics of history? Because you are fed by the American media that all conflicts involves Muslims? Because you haven't taken the time to read up on other conflicts? Because in some/many of the conflicts Muslims are involved in they are the ones defending themselves and not the opposite (disclaimer: I'm not saying Muslims are always defending themselves but they are absolutely not always the aggressor)?

Shall I go on?

[Big Mac]

Aside from the fact that your claim is false, how would you even know what American media say about Muslims? And can you point out any instances in which Muslims are "defending themselves" rather than being the aggressors? Let us hear the substantive claims you have to make, if there are any.

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Aside from the fact that your claim is false, how would you even know what American media say about Muslims? And can you point out any instances in which Muslims are "defending themselves" rather than being the aggressors? Let us hear the substantive claims you have to make, if there are any.

The fact that you lump all Muslims into one group makes your argument completely disingenuous.

[Monique]

Maybe Muslims have a bad name now because of a bunch of lazy bums and losers that are too lazy to get a job. When you work, you actually start thinking of others. Contrary to the bunch of losers that whined on the streets.

[DLQ2006]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

What the islamists are trying is to gain momentum with these protests, and once they have mobilised enough masses, they would use them to dethrone the authocratic arabic regimes. Taliesin

Yes, we see what kind of humanity and progress has been brought to Iran since the Islamic Fundamentalists overthrew the Shaw. That while the Shaw was a dictator, Iran under the Shaw was like a Church ladies' Sunday potluck compared to under The Ayatolla Khomeni. Yes, that's what we need in the ME. All the despots replaced by far worse despots. Since that seems to be all they have in that part of the world. A bunch of autocratic dictators versus a bunch of far more repressive, Islamofascists cut-throats. I thank God every night, I wasn't born into that depressing, depraved, savage, God forsaken part of the world.

[DLQ2006]

Originally Posted by Nicko

The fact that you lump all Muslims into one group makes your argument completely disingenuous.

Very true! They're not all bad. Just most of them.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by DLQ2006

Yes, we see what kind of humanity and progress has been brought to Iran since the Islamic Fundamentalists overthrew the Shaw.

I'm sorry, the Shaw of Iran... is that like the Presnick of the US or the Key of Spain?

V

[DLQ2006]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah

Because you don't know the basics of history? Because you are fed by the American media that all conflicts involves Muslims? Because you haven't taken the time to read up on other conflicts? Because in some/many of the conflicts Muslims are involved in they are the ones defending themselves and not the opposite (disclaimer: I'm not saying Muslims are always defending themselves but they are absolutely not always the aggressor)?

Shall I go on?

Case in point, The Pope makes a comment that Muslims disagree with, therefore provoking them to defend themselves by shooting a Nun who devoted her life to taking care of sick children. Guess it kind of depends on how one defines the concept of "defending themselves". I think most people by now can see very well how Muslims define self-defense.

I've heard Muslim Clerics claim that Jesus is Mohammad's slave. Is that not offensive? So let me get this straight. Imams and Clerics can say the most inflammatory, offensive things they want to, to include calling for the murder of all Christians and Jews, and we are required to try to understand and engage in dialogue that will lead to a better understanding of why they hate us so. Yet, a Pope repeats a quote and the Islamonuts start committing random acts of murder. If an offended Christian were to murder a Muslim clergy member, you can only imagine the outrage. The hordes of lslamonuts would be acting like the rabid lunatics that they act like with every slight perception that their "prophet" or "religion" has been criticized. Guess there's going to be a lot of internal struggles going on by those that follow a war-mongering pedophile "prophet" that suffered from hallucinations.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by DLQ2006

Yes, we see what kind of humanity and progress has been brought to Iran since the Islamic Fundamentalists overthrew the Shaw.

And yes, Iran is both a more free society today and also has made more progress on humanitarian issues and scientific/economic progress than ever under the Shah. The Shah was a tyrant and the sooner the US gets over losing their best puppet in the region the better for everyone involved.

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by voodoo

I'm sorry, the Shaw of Iran... is that like the Presnick of the US or the Key of Spain?

V

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Nicko

The fact that you lump all Muslims into one group makes your argument completely disingenuous.

I didn't lump them into one group in any different manner than Sayf did.

[Zeeb]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah

And yes, Iran is both a more free society today and also has made more progress on humanitarian issues and scientific/economic progress than ever under the Shah. The Shah was a tyrant and the sooner the US gets over losing their best puppet in the region the better for everyone involved.

Iran is such an admirable free society that women are still stoned for "adultery". Even women who are raped are guilty and stoned along with them.

[Monique]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah

And yes, Iran is both a more free society today and also has made more progress on humanitarian issues and scientific/economic progress than ever under the Shah. The Shah was a tyrant and the sooner the US gets over losing their best puppet in the region the better for everyone involved.

Ok free for who? It is a free society for men and the hell with women. Why don't middle eastern men respect women? In the sense that they are partners, not your slaves, that you will hot hit them, talk down to them, not mutilate them by performing forced female circumsicion, etc.

[itai195]

Originally Posted by Zeeb

Iran is such an admirable free society that women are still stoned for "adultery". Even women who are raped are guilty and stoned along with them.

Not to mention the treatment of journalists and political dissidents...

[ink]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

There are indeed quite a lot islamic preachers that are offending and criticizing christianity and judaism, but I doubt that there is even a single islamic preacher, who would offend Jesus or Moses.

Christains routinely criticize Paul, Isaiah and Moses in gospel doctrine classes. Jesus is different, because he is thought to literally be God. Do Muslims believe that all the prophets were infallible, and above reproach? Some of them?

I suppose that I don't understand why Mohammed is held in such a regard, it seems dangerously close to worship.

[DLQ2006]

Originally Posted by voodoo

I'm sorry, the Shaw of Iran... is that like the Presnick of the US or the Key of Spain?

V

Gosh, I usually spell the names and titles of all those ruling and former ruling goatf***ers on purpose.

[DLQ2006]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah

And yes, Iran is both a more free society today and also has made more progress on humanitarian issues and scientific/economic progress than ever under the Shah. The Shah was a tyrant and the sooner the US gets over losing their best puppet in the region the better for everyone involved.

The fact that you have the same concept of a free society as the Ayatolla Komeini did, is quite telling. The Fundamentalists opposed the SHAW because he was bringing equal rights to women. Komeini's triumph marked the beginning of the influence of the clergy in Iranian politics (Sharia law). Before the Fundamentalist revolution, the clerics could only RECOMMEND that women accused of adultry be stoned to death and accused theives have their hands severed, instead of ENFORCING it.

Yea............Sharia law under the Islamonazis is so much more conducive to human rights and equal rights. Those that wish to be ruled by a Caliphate, have no business living in the free world with those of us who cherish our freedom. There is only two reasons those wishing to live under such Islamofascism would choose to live among free people. 1) Because they love Freedom too and denounce the type of despotic, evil tyrannies they were lucky enough to flee or be taken out of by their parents or ancestors. 2) They are the propagandists for and the minions of the Islamonazi rulers.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by DLQ2006

Gosh, I usually spell the names and titles of all those ruling and former ruling goatf***ers on purpose.

Your ignorance is reflected in your spelling. Since the "ruling and former ruling goatf***ers" are not reading this forum, you could do well by start spelling things correctly instead of wasting everyone's time.

Perhaps it would also improve your spelling if you'd just draw your penis out of that goat's ass long enough to write your hick posts?

Sadly, while I agree with your general sentiment, you make such poorly articulated arguments that I'd rather not be associated with the likes of you. Typical American heretic with a condecending attitude to that which he does not know.

That you're more or less correct regarding the topic of discussion has to be chalked down to accident, coincidence or just one of those strange inexplicable things that happen in this crazy universe.

V

[DLQ2006]

Originally Posted by voodoo

Your ignorance is reflected in your spelling. Since the "ruling and former ruling goatf***ers" are not reading this forum, you could do well by start spelling things correctly instead of wasting everyone's time.

Perhaps it would also improve your spelling if you'd just draw your penis out of that goat's ass long enough to write your hick posts?

Sadly, while I agree with your general sentiment, you make such poorly articulated arguments that I'd rather not be associated with the likes of you. Typical American heretic with a condecending attitude to that which he does not know.

That you're more or less correct regarding the topic of discussion has to be chalked down to accident, coincidence or just one of those strange inexplicable things that happen in this crazy universe.

V

LOL................I don't have a penis as I'm a woman. A woman that lives in a country where most of the men prefer women over goats. And most of the women are better looking than goats. Is that why they like goats better over there? Because they look better than the women.

[Face Ache]

Originally Posted by DLQ2006

I don't have a penis as I'm a woman.

A real woman or a Monty Python type woman?

I'm imagining Terry Jones.

[DBursey]

..ooOOoo.. is she a goer? Does she go?

What's it like?!?!

'pologies to the penis-less posting & peripheral python poysons.

[Kerrigan]

"But I'm a lady!"

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by ink

Christains routinely criticize Paul, Isaiah and Moses in gospel doctrine classes. Jesus is different, because he is thought to literally be God. Do Muslims believe that all the prophets were infallible, and above reproach? Some of them?

I suppose that I don't understand why Mohammed is held in such a regard, it seems dangerously close to worship.

Indeed a strong admiration and veneration for prophet Muhammad can border on worship, but luckily the Quran criticized itself prophet Muhammad a couple of times, making clear that the prophet was just a human who was able to sin, just like Adam, Moses, David and a lot of other messengers of God. The only exception the Quran seems to hint at is that Jesus might indeed have been the only sinless messenger of God, since he got created specifically for the job of the messenger, while the others got chosen and inspired.

But regardless of all that, and despite all the criticisement a real christian would bring up against Moses and Isiah..., I guess no real christian would outrightly offend the prophets and say that they brought nothing new, but evil and inhuman things.

That is definitely crossing the line, even if only quoted, espescially given the context of the speech, and that coming from a pope who believes to be infallible when in office.

Taliesin

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

"But I'm a lady!"

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by Zeeb

Iran is such an admirable free society that women are still stoned for "adultery". Even women who are raped are guilty and stoned along with them.

A good rule when posting is the following.

Read - comprehend/understand - post.

Not just:

post first thing that comes to mind.

So I encourage you to read my post again.

[red rocket]

Originally Posted by external site

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.

source

Just what I thought, the offense was both calculated and intentional. Clear for all to see right from the outset, Ratty never had any intention of continuing with Wojtyla's policy of conciliation with the Islamic world, and this recent outrage is just one more step in this direction.

So, that leaves us with the question of what this pope really wants to achieve. Personally, I suspect he's planning to pull a Jesus act: get himself assassinated when he visits Turkey, it's the only way he can eclipse his predecessor.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by badidea

What's so hard to see that quote in context?
Do you not want to see it in context or do you just have no idea that this quote was taken out of context?
(and I hope you know what a quote is! If not, then search this post for words that are not written by me - hint: they might be from you!)

Have you really read my posting(s)? My point is that the whole speech is offending, and that the quote fits right there in to the general sentiment of the speech. The protesters that are organized by islamists, and that merely use these incidents as vehicles for their bigger political ambitions, react only to the quote. They indeed take it out of context and are not interested in the message of the speech.

But personally, I find the speech just as offending, eventhough its condescending sentiment and ignorance-full concepts and interpretations is much more subtle than the direct quote of the Byzantine emperor.

Originally Posted by badidea

Sorry but you completely misunderstood what Ratzinger was saying!
(I hope either incomplete or false translation of the speech)

I don't think so, it just happens that I have a whole other point of view and a better sensitivity to the subtle arguments than you.

So let's see what the pope really said:

In the seventh conversation [text unclear] 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.

That is obviously wrong, sura 2 is not of the early period, it is from the Medina-period, where Muhammad was in power and already engaged in a defensive war against the polytheists of Mecca.

The subtle meaning that the pope signals here dishonestly should not be very difficult to detect, but let's move on. He continues:

But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur'an, concerning holy war.

Now, here he shows his true colours, namely that he believes that there is a holy war prescripted in the Quran, ie. he believes the same as the Byzantine emperor and the same as the ottmanic empire's regime, that was, for selfish reasons, reading the historical and necessary fight for existence, as recorded in the Quran, to mean an eternal command for constant holy war.

Actually the ottomanic empire was learning a few lessons from the catholic church, and its use and invention of the concept of holy war in the centuries before the Byzantine emperor, who got quoted, came onto the scene.

The irony is overflowing.
With these passages and the famous quote, he connects Islam with holywar in the mind of the listeners, eventhough it was the catholic church that developed and used the concept of holy war for its own purposes, and then he goes on to define what God's nature is:

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 ... 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...".

The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident.

Not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. I'm inclined to agree, but I'm puzzled to see that the pope obviously believes like the Byzantine emperor and the ottomanic regime that violent conversion, even if only in the case of polytheists, is part of the quranic message.
And I'm even more surprised to see the pope denouncing violent conversion, considering the history of the church in the New world, in Africa and during the inquisition-high-times.

Eventhough I welcome the pope's new understanding of faith, tolerance and rationality, I would like to know how the pope understands God described in the old testament, the destruction of Sodom and Gommorah, the flood that supposedly killed all humans of the planet back then, except for Noah, his family, and those that believed him. How is that for a violent conversion?

But more interesting would be to get to know the pope's thinking about hell, and what he thinks when the New Testament promises eternal hell-punishment for all that don't accept Jesus as their saviour, and how that connects with God and rationality.

But ok, let's move on. Then the pope wants to demonstrate the understanding of God's nature from the islamic point of view and states:

But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality. Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practise idolatry.

Not only is it completely wrong, but really dishonest to quote Khoury, who quotes a french islamist (!!), who quotes Ibn Hazn, and then to take that quote-of-a-quote-of-a-quote (read extremistic view) to be the definitive description of God in Islam, instead of going to the real source, the Quran. There one would find in all titles of every sura, except for sura 9, the sentence: "In the name of God, the merciful, the forgiving".

But that is just the obvious, when reading the whole Quran, one gets the full picture of God, who is dedicated to truth, justice, mercy, love, peace, trust, guidance... and rationality.

What the obvious and ignorant concepts and interpretations that the pope has in regard to the quranic God mean in consequence is that the pope's opinion about prophet Muhammad is identical to the quoted byzantine emperor, that he uses the byzantine emperor merely as a protection against criticism and an escape, so that he can say, that he quoted him, but that it would not reflect his personal opinion. The rest of the speech though makes clear that that would be a lie.

So, having expressed his contempt for the islamic God and his prophet, at least how he wrongly understands and interprets, or how how he forcefully wants to misunderstand and misinterpret, them, he continues to the real meat and point of his speech:

At this point, as far as understanding of God and thus the concrete practice of religion is concerned, we are faced with an unavoidable dilemma. Is the conviction that acting unreasonably contradicts God's nature merely a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true?

I believe that here we can see the profound harmony between what is Greek in the best sense of the word and the biblical understanding of faith in God. Modifying the first verse of the Book of Genesis, the first verse of the whole Bible, John began the prologue of his Gospel with the words: "In the beginning was the Word".

So, having rediculed prophet Muhammad and his supposed understanding of God, and therefore distancing himself from the imaginary projected Islam, the pope makes the case of an union between greek ideas/philosophies/methods/thought and the Bible, and which he spots to be the union that created Europe.

He follows up with an excursion on how that union came about, namely through the language in which the original bible was written, that it was not a coincidence, and not just a translation but a witness in order to bring together what belongs together...

Then and only then, after having excluded the islamic world from Europe, the quranic God from the biblical God, prophet Muhammad from Jesus, he continues his speech with a broad critic of modern reason, and declares that reason alone is not sufficient and limited, that it needs faith, ie. christian faith (aka catholic faith), to complement it, not only in order to cross the limits, but also in order to prevent dangerous and destructive consequences that can come out of a faithless reason.

At the end of the speech, he says, that the western world needs faithful reason, in order to be able to have a dialogue with other cultures/partners.


Source for the translated speech: Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Faith, reason and the university: memories and reflections

You know what offends me the most!?!
That it now seems that even most moderate muslims can spend more time on protesting against Ratzinger than against radical islamists!

I think you got it wrong: Radical Islamists are organizing the protests against Pope Benedict, the other muslims are probably offended, and rightfully so, but they don't protest, they merely criticize him, just like me.
By the way, I find the tagging "moderate muslim" misleading, I prefer the tagging "real muslim" or just muslim.

Only once I would love to see thousands on the street and burning a symbolic suicide bomber! Only once!!

Why don't you organize it yourself, write to all the mosques in your town and neighbouring towns, and tell them that you would want to organize a demonstration with them where they can denounce the use of suicide-bombers in the name of their faith, and tell them you would want to burn a symbolic suicide-bomber as a mean to show not only the denouncing of such acts, but also a symbolic demonstration for where the suicide-bombers are really heading: hell-fire. Tell them also that you would invite TV-reporters to broadcast the event.

That way it's impossible for the demonstration to escape your attention.


Taliesin

[Zeeb]

Originally Posted by Sayf-Allah

A good rule when posting is the following.

Read - comprehend/understand - post.

Not just:

post first thing that comes to mind.

So I encourage you to read my post again.

You posted that Iran is a more free society today than it was under the Shah. I have no doubt that the Shah was extremely corrupt and needed to go -- but what he was replaced with could hardly be considered liberating. At least under the Shah, women could actually have careers, drive and were allowed to wear the clothing they wanted to, rather than be forced to hide under a veil. I know things have relaxed somewhat since the revolution but not by nearly enough.

Is it your opinion that women should be treated like dirt like they were after the Iranian revolution? Is it God's will?

[Sayf-Allah]

Originally Posted by Zeeb

You posted that Iran is a more free society today than it was under the Shah. I have no doubt that the Shah was extremely corrupt and needed to go -- but what he was replaced with could hardly be considered liberating. At least under the Shah, women could actually have careers, drive and were allowed to wear the clothing they wanted to, rather than be forced to hide under a veil. I know things have relaxed somewhat since the revolution but not by nearly enough.

I said that they are more free today than under the Shah. You disagreed. But then now you agree. Please make up your mind.

And Iranian women can have careers, can drive, but unfortunately they are forced to wear the clothes prescribed by the clergy (it's not the veil).

You seem to be confusing Iran with Saudi Arabia.

Again, try to read what I post more carefully next time.

[TETENAL]

Iran was more free under Mossadegh than it is today.

[ebuddy]

What I find most interesting is that it seems Muslims draw more from the Pope's speeches than do most Catholics. The Pope teaches that divorces are bad too, but that doesn't mean Catholics are going to be less likely to appreciate them.

I say; "Get over it. People are dying. The globe is warming and we're all going to burn up in a plume of automobile exhaust right?" Words are words. They only have as much weight as you give them. If the words say you're violent and you react violently, you've given those words more weight. If the Islamic doctrine and the author of it are not violent people with violent conversion agendas, then it is those using these means under the guise of your faith that are most guilty and should be hunted down and executed. Not nuns and Popes.

Let me be the first to say; God help us all if the Pope goes and gets himself killed in Turkey.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

That is definitely crossing the line, even if only quoted, espescially given the context of the speech, and that coming from a pope who believes to be infallible when in office.

Not this again.

There are certain times when the Pope, when speaking on matters of faith, declares his words to be "ex cathedra", from the chair of St. Peter, and all Catholics are expected to adhere to it if they want to be considered Catholic. But this is very rare. More like a "Once or twice every century, if even that" type of thing. And very often in history, the things that the pope declares in this way were decided by a council, and as such has a broader backing behind it than just "The Pope says so". Even this "ex cathedra" wording wasn't codified until 1870, so there is some discussion as to exactly which pronouncements qualift for this treatment. It is certainly not the case that every statement the Pope utters is infallible.

Papal infallibility - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We all benefit when we understand each other better.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

and that coming from a pope who believes to be infallible when in office.

This is a common mistake, a common misunderstanding. The Pope is not infallable always. There is just one moment when he is considered infallable, when he is speaking ex cathedra.

And this is VERY important.

Only when the Pope speaks on on the beahalf of his office, when in the discharge of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, and by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines that a doctrine concerning faith or morals must be held by the whole Church.

Meaning that he is only infallible when he makes an official declaration of a subject on behalf of the Church.

While there is no specific phrasing defined for this, a quote by any other man is certainly not his words and thus never a command ex cathedra.

If he had said something along these lines: "Mohammed brought nothing but evil and destruction into this world and if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which We have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith."

That would be infallible.

Quoting some guy from a book is about as far from ex cathedra one can get, since those aren't even the Pope's words.

V