Muslim anger grows at Pope speech

[Adamb0mb]

What the hell is the point of the pope calling muhammed a jerk? Even if the pope is right what could this possibly accomplish?

It will not promote a dialog between the west and the middle east nor will it inspire muslims into reforming their church. It just makes a bunch of muslims wonder "what the hell"?

 

[Katheryn]

What the hell is the point of the pope calling muhammed a jerk? Even if the pope is right what could this possibly accomplish?

It will not promote a dialog between the west and the middle east nor will it inspire muslims into reforming their church. It just makes a bunch of muslims wonder "what the hell"?

I think the point is that they have done 'dialogue' for years and Christians are still refused the right to practice their religion in the Muslim world. They are being annihilated in those countries, in very barbaric fashion.

 

[Adamb0mb]

I think the point is that they have done 'dialogue' for years and Christians are still refused the right to practice their religion in the Muslim world. They are being annihilated in those countries, in very barbaric fashion.

Then the pope should send his army, or use his clout to get someone else to send their army. Put a satelite in space to brainwash the muslims (I think the one near my house is owned by DirecTV). Do you really think that the pope talking trash about Muhammed is going to make life better for christians in muslim territories?

 

[Winner]

What the hell is the point of the pope calling muhammed a jerk? Even if the pope is right what could this possibly accomplish?

It will not promote a dialog between the west and the middle east nor will it inspire muslims into reforming their church. It just makes a bunch of muslims wonder "what the hell"?

Please feel free to show us, when did the Pope call Muhammad a jerk and when did he attack Islam as a faith. Go ahead.

Next time, I suggest that you should read the opening post more carefully.

 

[C~G]

How? If I understand his words correctly, he just said that you can't promote any faith by using violence. Jihad as a holy war is a fine example of what he meant.

He is also right in implying, that Islam has been, since it very beginning, spread by sword. Until 17th century, Islam expanded almost exclusively by conquest. Is it somehow wrong to say that? It is a fact.

Don't repeat that "it's a fact". It's same kind of fact as christianity has been spread by the sword and same goes to western culture.

If you try to condemn violence and open dialogue, you don't go demonizing the other party. It doesn't help with the set goals, unless the goal is to demonize and close the dialogue.

Sorry, but I can't agree with you on this idea, I mean, we can't simply stop criticizing the evil just in order to avoid offending someone. Imagine that people in the West had been afraid to criticize communism during the Cold war, because it could have offended the communists. Isn't that ridiculous idea?

Again, it doesn't help any dialogue with the communists to say that their whole base of thinking is wrong, twisted and evil.
Got it now?

It is the Muslims who have to stop being so sensitive, who should make a self-reflection and think again if their faith is really so flawless. Christians realized, few centuries ago, that the way they professed their faith was wrong so they changed it, they reformed their faith. Muslims have to do the same thing, not resort to violence every time someone reminds them that their faith has its flaws.

The self-realization of christian reform happened in small steps from the inside.
Now some people are asking change the face of islam (which for some westerners seem to be the face of Muhammed with all the nasty things he represents to them including terrorism) from the outside without any hesitation.
Do you think it could work?
Opening dialogue and affecting Muslim from the outside is good idea from the pope but his choice of words signaled otherwise. He can of course make another speech and try to recover what was lost in this terrible attempt.

You begin dialogue by starting with the truth even at the expense of Muslim sensibilities. If quoting a 14th Century Christian emperor who said "the Prophet Muhammad had brought the world only evil and inhuman things" is met "with bombs" instead of words, then perhaps there is merit to that quote.

So what if there is merit to it?
The main point is that it doesn't help the dialogue to go forward.
If truth doesn't serve the purpose, forget it.

But the problem here is that you don't care about muslim sensibilities and if you don't care, you can't have real dialogue, only hate speech, that's why I referred to "bombs".

In the wise words of Albert Schweitzer, "Truth has no special time of its own. Its hour is now, always, and indeed then most truly when it seems most unsuitable to actual circumstances."

Are you saying that truth is more important than peace?
Sometimes you have to just shut up in order not to get your nose bleed.
Unless you desperately want to.

I have started to have feeling that some people don't want peace with muslims, neither they want cold war but a hot bloody bath.

 

[atreas]

Of course I know what I am saying. The islamic invasion of EUROPE that started on 711 was a religious one. The cruzades was another religious attack, and attempt to liberate Jerusalem once the islamic invasion in Europe was being properly rejected.

Care to elaborate your answer?

As is very obvious, you connect two completely disconnected things: what happened to "your" side of Europe (Spain) with what happened to the Middle East. You seem to have forgotten completely that there was no Islamic invasion in Europe from the Eastern side until the 15th century, for the very simple reason that there was an empire there that defended well that side. The crusades were an attempt to reconquer Jerusalem (at least, the 1st of them which is BY FAR the only one with a real purpose), which is as far as I remember quite far from Europe, and had nothing to do with the islamic invasion AT ALL. (In fact, there were even crusades that didn't even bother to battle against Muslims, like the infamous 4th crusade.)

Net Result: Crusades had NOTHING to do with islamic invasion in Europe.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

@Brighteye and Mott1:

I know my history, let's show now if you know yours. Just a simple quiz: who provided the cannons for the Turks in the Constantinople capture of 1453. So much for Europe fighting against islamic invasion PRIOR to the fall of Byzantine empire.

 

[Katheryn]

Then the pope should send his army, or use his clout to get someone else to send their army. Put a satelite in space to brainwash the muslims (I think the one near my house is owned by DirecTV). Do you really think that the pope talking trash about Muhammed is going to make life better for christians in muslim territories?

As someone succinctly said, we hope that it 'inspires Muslims to reform their religion', as Christianity did to theirs.

 

[Katheryn]

As is very obvious, you connect two completely disconnected things: what happened to "your" side of Europe (Spain) with what happened to the Middle East. You seem to have forgotten completely that there was no Islamic invasion in Europe from the Eastern side until the 15th century, for the very simple reason that there was an empire there that defended well that side. The crusades were an attempt to reconquer Jerusalem (at least, the 1st of them which is BY FAR the only one with a real purpose), which is as far as I remember quite far from Europe, and had nothing to do with the islamic invasion AT ALL. (In fact, there were even crusades that didn't even bother to battle against Muslims, like the infamous 4th crusade.)

Net Result: Crusades had NOTHING to do with islamic invasion in Europe.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

@Brighteye and Mott1:

I know my history, let's show now if you know yours. Just a simple quiz: who provided the cannons for the Turks in the Constantinople capture of 1453. So much for Europe fighting against islamic invasion PRIOR to the fall of Byzantine empire.

Perhaps you would care to take a look at the list I posted on page 7.

There were many invasions into Europe during the 8th century. Spain, France, Portugal, Italy... on and on. Take a look.

 

[Winner]

Don't repeat that "it's a fact". It's same kind of fact as christianity has been spread by the sword and same goes to western culture.

Of course it is. Your point is...?

If you try to condemn violence and open dialogue, you don't go demonizing the other party. It doesn't help with the set goals, unless the goal is to demonize and close the dialogue.

There is no need to demonize Islam, its adherents are doing pretty good job in that themselves. Nevertheless, the Pope didn't demonize Islam, he just said, that the concept of holy war is wrong. What's so wrong on that?

Again, it doesn't help any dialogue with the communists to say that their whole base of thinking is wrong, twisted and evil.

Actually, it does. You have to attack their principles, you have to ridicule them. Communism in the Eastern Bloc fell because people started to ask the right questions.

You think that if you keep quiet about the evil, it will eventually fade away, but that's just plain wrong assumption. History has shown us, that if you keep quiet about the evil, you will just encourage it in its confidence. Once again I'll make the parallel with communism - if people in the Eastern Bloc had kept quiet about the evils of communism, it would have never felt.

Got it now?

No.

The self-realization of christian reform happened in small steps from the inside.

The pressure had been mounting for some time, but the reformation was in fact a very quick process.

Now some people are asking change the face of islam (which for some westerners seem to be the face of Muhammed with all the nasty things he represents to them including terrorism) from the outside without any hesitation.
Do you think it could work?

It has to work. We don't have the luxury to wait few centuries until they finally decide, that killing indifels is wrong. World is different now, in fact, Islam should have been reformed centuries ago, it is long overdue now.

Opening dialogue and affecting Muslim from the outside is good idea from the pope but his choice of words signaled otherwise. He can of course make another speech and try to recover what was lost in this terrible attempt.

I think you're missing something. The "dialogue" has been opened for some time now, but it is a dialogue of deaf - Islamic world doesn't seem to be listening. The only thing we hear is: "you have to stop ridiculing our faith (ridiculing=everything that smells of constructive criticism), you have to be more like us (respect our rules in your countries), in fact, you should all convert to Islam". Nice.

It is about a time to change our tactic, we need to go on offensive in this "dialogue". We need to criticize all the flaws of Islam and we have to do that unconditionally and resolutely. At least they'll have to listen.

 

[Winner]

A quote from BBC's "Have your say" discussion:

Pope Benedict is entitled to quote from any source he chooses to, and on any subject.
As a Muslim, I am more disturbed by the hypocrisy of my brethren when they are silenced at the atrocities committed by Muslims, upon other Muslims. How many Shia Muslim men, women and children are murdered daily in Iraq in sectarian violence. Why don't we vocalise our outrage against perpetrators of these heinous acts? "We" blow each other up in mosques, at funerals, in schools..., the silence is deafening.

Naeem Zafar, Crawley

This is exactly the kind of thinking Islam needs very much.

 

[jeriko one]

Actually, I agree with you on a lot of those points. I don't think that muslims should be as sensitive about the image of mohammed, as it is a rule for the faithful, not everyone.

They must be sensitive about the images because it is forbidden. So the opinions of others do not interest them. Not eating pork is in Kur`an too and you can`t do anything about it. So respecting other leigions is the only way out. In Turkey people usually respect other religions.(Bar some extreme rightists) They do not draw caricatures showing Jesus or Moses in strange and humorless poses. Isa and Musa and Meryem(Jesus and Moses and Mary) are really common names in Turkey because Jesus Christ and Moses are accepted as the prophets of Allah. Can you see a christian family naming his son Muhammed???

It is also strange that the speech comes at a time of religious conflict, when things go out of hand in Afghanistan.

 

[Mott1]

So what if there is merit to it?
The main point is that it doesn't help the dialogue to go forward.
If truth doesn't serve the purpose, forget it.

But the problem here is that you don't care about muslim sensibilities and if you don't care, you can't have real dialogue, only hate speech, that's why I referred to "bombs".
Are you saying that truth is more important than peace?
Sometimes you have to just shut up in order not to get your nose bleed.
Unless you desperately want to.

I have started to have feeling that some people don't want peace with muslims, neither they want cold war but a hot bloody bath.

If within truth peace cannot be achieved, then peace will ultimately be unachievable. Peace can never be established on lies or a neglection of the truth. So truth is just as important as peace.
Changes will not take place in Islam if these issues are not confronted, in fact it will get worse.
Shuting up will only encourage the bully to bleed your nose. The more you shut up, the more confidance the bully gains.

 

[Katheryn]

The self-realization of christian reform happened in small steps from the inside.
Now some people are asking change the face of islam (which for some westerners seem to be the face of Muhammed with all the nasty things he represents to them including terrorism) from the outside without any hesitation.
Do you think it could work?
Opening dialogue and affecting Muslim from the outside is good idea from the pope but his choice of words signaled otherwise. He can of course make another speech and try to recover what was lost in this terrible attempt.

====================

Christian reform came in the person of Martin Luther, not in small steps. It was a revolt, a protest, hence the name "Protestant Church".

Martin Luther forced the Catholic Church to face it's inadequacies, it's corruption. He didn't do that by dialogue. He did it by proclaiming the truth, by condemning hypocrisy. All Christians were better off for it. It was done with damning words, much like Benedict's words.

=============



So what if there is merit to it?
The main point is that it doesn't help the dialogue to go forward.
If truth doesn't serve the purpose, forget it.

But the problem here is that you don't care about muslim sensibilities and if you don't care, you can't have real dialogue, only hate speech, that's why I referred to "bombs".

==============

The problem here isn't that people don't care about muslim sensibilities, but that we demand they move past them and encounter the truth. Truth doesn't need to serve a purpose. It is something that must be faced. The fact is that violence follows the followers of Islam.

Violence in religion must be faced and condemned, just a Martin Luther condemned practices in the Catholic Church. We should thank Benedictine for his courage, not call his words hate speech.

 

[atreas]

Perhaps you would care to take a look at the list I posted on page 7.

There are many invasions into Europe during the 8th century. Spain, France, Portugal, Italy... on and on. Take a look.

You must be very careful to distinguish between the various Muslims - there were Arabs, Saracens, later Turks, and they came in different periods, with different means and different war methods, and cannot be all combined under the simplistic label "Muslims". But the main idea is still one - you can't connect crusades with what happened at the other side of Europe.

My point is crystal-clear: I find the Pope extremely hypocritical in using the words of an emperor that was in OPEN WAR with Muslims to characterize them nowadays (even though I don't disagree with the Byzantine emperor in his characterization). If I keep that phrase of the Byzantine emperor, why not to keep also the others, quite descriptive ways in which they talked at that time about the Pope and the Catholic church in general (they started with corrupt, heretic, etc)? What good does it bring now if a political person (as the Pope de facto is) speaks like that, especially in view of his visit in Turkey next month?

 

[Winner]

My point is crystal-clear: I find the Pope extremely hypocritical in using the words of an emperor that was in OPEN WAR with Muslims to characterize them nowadays (even though I don't disagree with the Byzantine emperor in his characterization). If I keep that phrase of the Byzantine emperor, why not to keep also the others, quite descriptive ways in which they talked at that time about the Pope and the Catholic church in general (they started with corrupt, heretic, etc)? What good does it bring now if a political person (as the Pope de facto is) speaks like that, especially in view of his visit in Turkey next month?

What good does it bring to speak openly about the flaws of Islam, is that your question? Because I think it is pretty self-explanatory.

You seem to imply that past mistakes of Church or Christendom itself somehow excuse the current and continuous violent excesses of Islam.

Pope has every right to be critical of certain Islamic tenets, as well as I or other people.

 

[atreas]

What good does it bring to speak openly about the flaws of Islam, is that your question? Because I think it is pretty self-explanatory.

You seem to imply that past mistakes of Church or Christendom itself somehow excuse the current and continuous violent excesses of Islam.

Pope has every right to be critical of certain Islamic tenets, as well as I or other people.

Let's see again if history can help us see why such a policy is dangerous: do you happen to remember what happened to the Jews when the religious leaders pointed the (real) fact that it was them who crucified Jesus?

Leaders have the responsibility also not to excite passions. Because there will be always willing fanatics who will take their words and use them as weapons.

 

[Winner]

Let's see again if history can help us see why such a policy is dangerous: do you happen to remember what happened to the Jews when the religious leaders pointed the (real) fact that it was them who crucified Jesus?

That's pretty bad example. Historically, when people keep quiet about the evil, it tends to overwhelm them.

Leaders have the responsibility also not to excite passions. Because there will be always willing fanatics who will take their words and use them as weapons.

If this is meant to be an argument for keeping quiet and assuring Muslims that the concept of holy war is OK, I tend to disagree. They have to understand, that violence is totally and unconditionally unacceptable. And quite frankly, I don't care if they'll be offended by this finding.

 

[C~G]

Of course it is. Your point is...?

I was merely pointing out...ah, forget about it.

There is no need to demonize Islam, its adherents are doing pretty good job in that themselves. Nevertheless, the Pope didn't demonize Islam, he just said, that the concept of holy war is wrong. What's so wrong on that?

Apparently he said quite bunch other things. You should maybe read the speech, again.
Try to read the text as you would be a muslim that doesn't understand the context or the purpose of it.

Actually, it does. You have to attack their principles, you have to ridicule them. Communism in the Eastern Bloc fell because people started to ask the right questions.

Islam is religion and doesn't "fall". It may reform like christianity but won't "fall" unless it's by violence which I'm sure we don't want. Unless that is your goal?

You think that if you keep quiet about the evil, it will eventually fade away, but that's just plain wrong assumption. History has shown us, that if you keep quiet about the evil, you will just encourage it in its confidence. Once again I'll make the parallel with communism - if people in the Eastern Bloc had kept quiet about the evils of communism, it would have never felt.

So you are trying to create cold war between muslims and western world or do you see the situation as such already?

If the idea is to open dialogue between religions I fail to see the efficiency of such dialogue that start by ridiculing (or demonizing) the other party. That ain't dialogue soon but monologue or dialogue inside one religion about other religion.

And you seem to be referring to islam again as evil which doesn't help the dialogue and is simple demonizing of it.

The pressure had been mounting for some time, but the reformation was in fact a very quick process.

You're partly right there.

The idea of reformation took long and it took centuries after the revolt as the religion started find new paths. This been discussed before, reformation of Islam could happen differently.

It has to work. We don't have the luxury to wait few centuries until they finally decide, that killing indifels is wrong. World is different now, in fact, Islam should have been reformed centuries ago, it is long overdue now.

Killing infidels is wrong while we're at it?
For christians killing is also wrong but still they manage to do it all the time.

Reforming Islam won't perish the fundamentalists and terrorists, they just dig up deeper just like in western countries.
Don't understand the point about reformation of Islam should have happened long time ago. It's like me thinking that the west should have given up christianity centuries ago but haven't done so. I think west is terrible backward in that sense.

I think you're missing something. The "dialogue" has been opened for some time now, but it is a dialogue of deaf - Islamic world doesn't seem to be listening. The only thing we hear is: "you have to stop ridiculing our faith (ridiculing=everything that smells of constructive criticism), you have to be more like us (respect our rules in your countries), in fact, you should all convert to Islam". Nice.

It seemed that pope's speech was referred as opening up dialogue in which task he failed miserably.

I would never call his speech constructive criticism. Or unless it's considered as given by adult to a child, trying to show the error of his ways. Which when considering that the actual dialogue is between two adult parties the result is mess if other one treats another one like a child.

It is about a time to change our tactic, we need to go on offensive in this "dialogue". We need to criticize all the flaws of Islam and we have to do that unconditionally and resolutely. At least they'll have to listen.

Well, Pope opened the can for surely now.
Interesting that you said we have to go "offensive in this dialogue" but still voted "not" at this being "offending". You could make up your mind unless you somehow interpret "offensive" and "offending" differently.
Or are you saying that Pope attacked Islam while at the same time he's trying to open dialogue with them (as sources tell him to trying to do so) and they shouldn't feel offended by such thing?

You're just proving my point that this was feeble attempt for opening the dialogue and nothing else but purposeful provocation into which muslims answered with their own way.

Christian reform came in the person of Martin Luther, not in small steps. It was a revolt, a protest, hence the name "Protestant Church".

Martin Luther forced the Catholic Church to face it's inadequacies, it's corruption. He didn't do that by dialogue. He did it by proclaiming the truth, by condemning hypocrisy. All Christians were better off for it. It was done with damning words, much like Benedict's words.

I'm not even Christian and seem to know this issue better than christians.

The Catholic Church faced similar criticism already centuries before Luther but by his revolt it changed the small flames in to big fire.

And it happened in the inside, not from the outside like here in Benedict's speech. Unless he wants to reform the Catholic Church again.

But like you said it wasn't by dialogue which has been said to be the purpose of Benedict. You see the error here?

If within truth peace cannot be achieved, then peace will ultimately be unachievable. Peace can never be established on lies or a neglection of the truth. So truth is just as important as peace.

In the end yes, but not in the beginning.

Changes will not take place in Islam if these issues are not confronted, in fact it will get worse.

Time for confrontation with truth will come to Islam eventually, but don't you think it's better way to start the process that eventually leads to this than trying to say muslims when you first meet them that you need to go into some AA meetings since your father was a drunkard and you seem to have history of misuse of alcohol while christians drink sophisticatedly?

Shuting up will only encourage the bully to bleed your nose. The more you shut up, the more confidance the bully gains.

Should I point out the false analogy here?
I think the jihadists (bully for me) got lot more confidence from this than if the Pope would had actually tried to find more fitting words. But I guess you see the whole Islam as the bully, so there's no point but spit out words and take the punches.

Violence in religion must be faced and condemned, just a Martin Luther condemned practices in the Catholic Church. We should thank Benedictine for his courage, not call his words hate speech.

I think I'm the last person who will thank the pope in this earth but that is another issue.

All can I say that some people have really much learn about human communication if they say this is perfect and valid way to start dialogue.
You should people go out more or seek marriage counseling.

 

[atreas]

That's pretty bad example. Historically, when people keep quiet about the evil, it tends to overwhelm them.

Historically, when religious leaders tell that a different religion is evil, you have to double your guards - nothing good will happen.

 

[C~G]

Historically, when religious leaders tell that a different religion is evil, you have to double your guards - nothing good will happen.

Indeed.

And if somebody missed it:

"It is clear that the Holy Father's intention is to cultivate a position of respect and dialogue towards other religions and cultures, and that clearly includes Islam," said chief Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi in a statement.

He did it on purpose or failed in his task.

He succeeded in anything but rising the tide and this is the result.
Doesn't differ much probably from the monologues of jihadist clerics.